News Park attendance showing significant softness heading into the Fall 2018

[CaptainAmerica]

I understand that may be the case with convention center hotels and with DVC, but can you explain the other hotels that don’t fall into this category?

The resorts fill much more quickly than the parks do. The resorts fill up first, to 85% - 90% occupancy, at which point it becomes very difficult for people like @ThatMouse to find availability for their specific dates. This is the "base case" scenario that plays out pretty much year-round. The fluctuations in attendance are (primarily) not driven by resort guests, since the resort guests are always there. The fluctuations in attendance are from local guests and off-property guests.

The only " cut backs" we've seen is shorter park hours. As in closing earlier. I don't know of a single "short staffing " issue. I know some will aggressively dispute this but then again you're not here every day. Management is very adamant about guest experience and understaffing is not an option. Believe it or not.

Yep. Lower crowd levels mean that reduced staffing is 100% legitimate. It doesn't mean the operation is under staffed, it just means the operation needs less people (or less hours) to be "fully staffed" when the crowds aren't as high.

 

[monothingie]

F&W has always been a poor value for the money.

I think it’s more that F&W peaked a couple of years back. It’s more or less been the same experience , coupled with the additional festivals and increased prices, it’s just not the draw it was.

 

[tissandtully]

Yes, those buggers. That was the best part of Pecos Bills, despite its unnatural green color.

Lol, did you edit your post or did mods? I swear it said something else. And yes, I believe management figured out how popular guac was and saw dollars flying by.

 

[CJR]

I disagree here. Toy Story Land was marketed less than Pandora in ways. While the attractions were not major e tickets (not everything can or should be) it was a major addition to a park that desperately needs it. The addition also cost a ton of money (yes more than it should have) and if I was running a business of course I would market the heck out of that.

I would market the heck out of it too if it were me in this situation, but the problem is they still aren't significant enough additions to boost attendance in addition to price increases, markups, and new charges/fees that didn't exist before. The marketing did work for the summer, if I recall.

I see the hotel parking charges as the biggest miscalculation by management. Right now is a time where Florida residents tend to visit more, but they're either not going at all or not staying onsite. Residents are more likely to drive and the parking fees have likely driven them away (pun intended). The marketing did what it was supposed to increasing awareness of the land, the problem is that managerial decisions messed up what was supposed to be a good campaign.

At the time of TSL's opening, most hotels were booked prior to that parking fees being required. Now that it's fall and is more dependent on residents/ap holders getting rooms, they are feeling the burn of that decision. The parking charges were to encourage people on vacation to avoid renting a car, but residents don't really factor into this. Now that it's time to depend on them, they're not coming as management had hoped. I'd say the timing is a pretty big indicator that hotel parking expenses are playing a big role in this, more so than anything else.

 

[monothingie]

The resorts fill much more quickly than the parks do. The resorts fill up first, to 85% - 90% occupancy, at which point it becomes very difficult for people like @ThatMouse to find availability for their specific dates. This is the "base case" scenario that plays out pretty much year-round. The fluctuations in attendance are (primarily) not driven by resort guests, since the resort guests are always there. The fluctuations in attendance are from local guests and off-property guests.


Yep. Lower crowd levels mean that reduced staffing is 100% legitimate. It doesn't mean the operation is under staffed, it just means the operation needs less people (or less hours) to be "fully staffed" when the crowds aren't as high.

I agree with your reasoning, However management forecasts months before what the occupancy is going to be based on reservation patterns and base promotions based on that. Again over the summer they were very heavily promoting packages and rooms for the fall. Of which there are still substantial discounts available. (Just checked)

Typically Disney resorts have a very high occupancy rate and anything bellow 85% is considered poor. Unfortunately none of us are privy to this information.

 

[Rteetz]

I understand that may be the case with convention center hotels and with DVC, but can you explain the other hotels that don’t fall into this category?

If every room was filled at WDW the parks would not be at capacity as well. The WDW resorts only make up for so much of that attendance. You also have people staying at WDW resorts that do other things like universal, etc.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I agree with your reasoning, However management forecasts months before what the occupancy is going to be based on reservation patterns and base promotions based on that. Again over the summer they were very heavily promoting packages and rooms for the fall. Of which there are still substantial discounts available. (Just checked)

I'm sure there are pockets of availability, but it's not wide open where you have your pick of resort, room type, and dates.

Typically Disney resorts have a very high occupancy rate and anything bellow 85% is considered poor. Unfortunately none of us are privy to this information.

Below 85% is not poor. The target is 80%, per an interview Jay Rasulo gave years ago. 85% is considered "full". Above 85% is when you look to start adding capacity through resort expansion. It's near impossible to get that last 15% because of the way different guests' reservations overlap. You end up with random midweek one- and two-day spots that you can't get anyone to book regardless of the discount.

 

[monothingie]

If every room was filled at WDW the parks would not be at capacity as well. The WDW resorts only make up for so much of that attendance. You also have people staying at WDW resorts that do other things like universal, etc.

No I get that, but if you have the deluxe hotelsfor example struggling to get to 85% occupancy, isn’t that a predictive factor as to how well general attendence is going to be?

 

[CaptainAmerica]

No I get that, but if you have the deluxe hotelsfor example struggling to get to 85% occupancy, isn’t that a predictive factor as to how well general attendence is going to be?

The promotions I'm seeing right now are 20% or 25% depending on the season, then a 30% winter offer for passholders. It wasn't that long ago when we were seeing discounts regularly in the 30% to 40% range, and back then at lower rack rates to begin with. "Struggling" to fill rooms at less-than-normal discounts isn't that crazy.

Also, WDW reported occupancy of 88% (I believe) in their last earnings call.

 

[cmb5002]

Lol, did you edit your post or did mods? I swear it said something else. And yes, I believe management figured out how popular guac was and saw dollars flying by.

I did. I'm used to posting on sports forums and sometimes forget the audience here. Thought better of my wording within a minute or two.

 

[ColdSarsaparilla]

Welp... FWIW, I guess I voted with my wallet in 2018. Our annual/semi-annual summer trip was a split-stay for the first time this year. We spent a few days on the Gulf coast, shortened our time on grounds, made fewer ADRs and spent fewer days in the parks.

 

[TwilightZone]

It's happening. The non ubers are catching on. Now we wait.

Spoiler

Or they're waiting for star wars land and it will be a big crowd next year. Wait n see I guess

 

[CJR]

It's happening. The non ubers are catching on. Now we wait.

Spoiler

Or they're waiting for star wars land and it will be a big crowd next year. Wait n see I guess

I'd say it's both. Next year will be busy - well - LATE next year. The first half.... will be interesting to see how it's managed since they typically bring up prices in Feb.

 

[ColdSarsaparilla]

By all accounts, they are expecting a massive boost from SW:GE, it will be very interesting to pay attention to whether it meets the seemingly huge expectations.

 

[AndyS2992]

I think Star Wars land will bring a lot of people in but I personally think it will be no where near as packed as people are estimating.

1. The last two movies drastically under performed, merchandise is always marked down. Over saturation has already kicked in under Disney’s ownership.

2. It isn’t a unique land. People won’t all be flocking to WDW all at one, there will be Star Wars lands at California and Paris as well. Half of the people will go east, the rest west and Europeans who can wait will go to Paris. And even then it’s just two rides and a restaurant, I think causals will be disappointed as they will have expected more as I expect the marketing push to be huge.

I had more points but I think you get it.

 

[brettf22]

While I waited for rope drop at AK this morning, two CMs were discussing how slow it was at AK the day before (Sun). So much so that they were sending CMs home very early in the day. Don’t know how regular this occurance is, but thought it interesting.

 

[SSH]

F&W has always been a poor value for the money.

I agree, but maybe more people are now starting to feel that way as well?

The other thing I keep thinking is that this is in the middle of the strongest economic numbers in many years, with respect to employment, the bull market, etc. (I know it hasn't trickled down to everyone, stagnant wage growth, etc- don't mean to start any economic/political arguments lol) My point is just that WDW can't really blame the economy for any slowdown issues.

 

[EPICOT]

I forget what the number is, but there's an "optimal" number of attractions for a guest to see in a given day. I think it's either 9 or 11. After that, the marginal satisfaction a guest gets from seeing additional attractions is negligible. In other words, a guest who sees 11 attractions is much happier than a guest who sees 6 attractions. But a guest who sees 15 attractions is not any happier than a guest who sees 11 attractions. So throwing labor at the parks in order to get guests from 11 to 15 isn't worth the cost because it doesn't actually result in the guests getting a "wonderful experience, making them much more likely to return" as you posited.

I agree with you in principle, but I think the numbers are a bit different. I think 9-11 is the minimum threshold for walking away at the end of the day feeling satisfied (“I got exactly what I paid for”). 15-17 is the level of absolutely amazingly satisfied (“I got MORE than wait I paid for!) TDO is aiming to just fulfill the minimum requirements

 

[ColdSarsaparilla]

Also, side note personal observation...

One could argue that the park that has been managed with a longer-term view than most of the resort is DAK, and it's interesting to watch that park, which has the fewest out-of-place Disney IP associations by far (UP! A Great Bird Adventure notwithstanding ) grow into a favorite among die-hards and lifestylers.

 

[George]

No that is part of regular patterns that Disney fully plans for. This is unexpected softness.

Jiminy Christmas man! Has TDO forgotten that little pills are made for that exact problem?

I think Star Wars land will bring a lot of people in but I personally think it will be no where near as packed as people are estimating.

1. The last two movies drastically under performed, merchandise is always marked down. Over saturation has already kicked in under Disney’s ownership.

2. It isn’t a unique land. People won’t all be flocking to WDW all at one, there will be Star Wars lands at California and Paris as well. Half of the people will go east, the rest west and Europeans who can wait will go to Paris. And even then it’s just two rides and a restaurant, I think causals will be disappointed as they will have expected more as I expect the marketing push to be huge.

I had more points but I think you get it.

I remember a time when the posited popularity of the vast majority of attractions had nothing to do with a movie's box office performance. Oh, what a time that was.