The Spirited Seventh Heaven ...

[Cesar R M]

Common sense. If you're not standing in line, you're walking from one place to another, infinitely increasing the possibility you'll stop at a shop or buy a Mickey Ice Cream Bar.

or they could use more street-like vendors roaming on high line zones.
can you imagine a mickey ice cream bar vendor right outside the thunder mountain when it as its huge waiting line?
how about the after the shows in the center hub?

I don't understand the persistent Disney bashing over ticket prices. Industry wide it has always been a simple matter of supply vs. demand. When we first moved to Nashville years ago, Opryland Amusement Park and WDW were both charging $8.00 admission and there was no rushing the gates over such a bargain. Universal, Sea World, and all the other theme pares have gone along with the rising tide of charging more and more, yearly, or more often than that. Disney always winds up as the scapegoat for being 'greedy'. I still say that you get your money's worth. I don't agree with how fast that they've all risen, but, it will set you back $18.00 or more to watch the Guardians of the Galaxy opus in 3-D IMAX, plus $8.50 for popcorn, another $4.00 for soda....and that's just for 2 hrs of hopefully, good entertainment.

with these prices.. I would never go to a movie theatre!

entrance is just 3.5 USD here, package of 2 sodas + giant popcorn is 7.5 USD

 

[danlb_2000]

Hopefully the Hogwarts Express looks more impressive in person, because the video makes it look like you are watching a small TV. I was expecting full scale large windows like they have in the movie.

I don't often agree with you, but I do in this case. What is shown in the video is not what I was expecting, doesn't "feel" like you are looking out a window. Maybe the effect works better in person. The rest of the train looks perfect.

[Edit] Now that I look at it closer, it appear that the window extend up beyond the top of what we are seeing, that might help make it more convincing.

 

[ParentsOf4]

I bet that Disney has run the numbers and come to a different conclusion than you did.

You mean the numbers that show that P&R gross margins averaged more than 30% higher under Eisner than they have under Iger? That in the 8 full fiscal years that Iger has been in charge of TWDC, 7 of P&R's 10 lowest gross margin years have been under Iger?

Rule #1 in climbing the corporate ladder is: never tell the boss he doesn't know what he's doing.

When it comes to P&R, Iger and Rasulo don't know what they're doing.

 

[mahnamahna101]

[/QUOTE] Potter has been the best weapon Universal has had, but King Kong, Transformers, Despicable Me, Jurassic Park, etc are all valuable. They are collecting IP and having an IP driven experience. That allows them to remain relevant. Yes they're still playing catch up, but they're actually playing the game. Disney isn't.[/QUOTE]

They also have Frankenstein, Dracula, Back to the Future, JAWS, Dr. Seuss, Shrek, Popeye (he's the only timeless character in Toon Lagoon), SpongeBob, Scooby-Doo, Curious George, The Simpsons, E.T., Terminator and Marvel (theme park wise). And Bill Paxton while I agree that Universal doesn't have the timelessness of Disney's IPs... they've got plenty of classics.

Not to mention Godzilla, Fast and Furious, Star Trek, Middle Earth, Wonka, World of Warcraft, Smurfs, TMNT, My Little Pony, and Hello Kitty as potential IPs that could be added to Universal's arsenals. Illumination will only keep growing as an animation studio.

Nintendo is wide-open in the theme park market, while Halo is supposed to get a TV show and Assassin's Creed is supposed to get a movie next August. The theme park that obtains the rights to some of the most popular/timeless games... oh boy

A video game-themed 3rd gate: Mushroom Kingdom, Hyrule, Azeroth, Middle Earth (LOTR Online as a loose link), Pokeworld, Sci-Fi section (Halo, Megaman, Star Fox, Metroid), and an 8 bit area (Pac-Man, Frogger, Space Invaders, etc). While video games are considered niche, the right marketing could make this appealing to everyone. I know it's unlikely but still!

Universal needs Potter, just like Disney needs Mickey, Pooh, the Princesses, Star Wars, Marvel, etc. Every park needs appealing characters and attractions.

 

[Mike S]

They also have Frankenstein, Dracula, Back to the Future, JAWS, Dr. Seuss, Shrek, Popeye (he's the only timeless character in Toon Lagoon), SpongeBob, Scooby-Doo, Curious George, The Simpsons, E.T., Terminator and Marvel (theme park wise). And Bill Paxton while I agree that Universal doesn't have the timelessness of Disney's IPs... they've got plenty of classics.

Not to mention Godzilla, Fast and Furious, Star Trek, Middle Earth, Wonka, World of Warcraft, Smurfs, TMNT, My Little Pony, and Hello Kitty as potential IPs that could be added to Universal's arsenals. Illumination will only keep growing as an animation studio.

Nintendo is wide-open in the theme park market, while Halo is supposed to get a TV show and Assassin's Creed is supposed to get a movie next August. The theme park that obtains the rights to some of the most popular/timeless games... oh boy

A video game-themed 3rd gate: Mushroom Kingdom, Hyrule, Azeroth, Middle Earth (LOTR Online as a loose link), Pokeworld, Sci-Fi section (Halo, Megaman, Star Fox, Metroid), and an 8 bit area (Pac-Man, Frogger, Space Invaders, etc). While video games are considered niche, the right marketing could make this appealing to everyone. I know it's unlikely but still!

Universal needs Potter, just like Disney needs Mickey, Pooh, the Princesses, Star Wars, Marvel, etc. Every park needs appealing characters and attractions.

As you could probably tell from my avatar I would be completely over the moon if Universal announced a third park based on video games, especially Nintendo That would definitely give Universal an instant nostalgia factor for their new park.

 

[DougK]

I don't often agree with you, but I do in this case. What is shown in the video is not what I was expecting, doesn't "feel" like you are looking out a window. Maybe the effect works better in person. The rest of the train looks perfect.

[Edit] Now that I look at it closer, it appear that the window extend up beyond the top of what we are seeing, that might help make it more convincing.

Keep in mind you folks are judging the commercial, not the attraction. None of us has ridden the ride yet.

 

[danlb_2000]

Keep in mind you folks are judging the commercial, not the attraction. None of us has ridden the ride yet.

Thus why I said "Maybe the effect works better in person".

 

[Mike S]

what is your av anyways, i cant figure it out

It's Samus Aran, the protagonist of the Metroid video game series.

 

[Nubs70]

I bet that Disney has run the numbers and come to a different conclusion than you did.

The results from the 10k show Disney wrong.

 

[Goofyernmost]

In recent years, WDW’s prices haven’t simply increased at more than twice the rate of inflation. They’ve increased significantly faster than household income; faster than people’s ability to pay them.

WDW has never been so unaffordable.

I don't for a minute dispute all that you said in that post. I'm positive that all of it is true. The problem I have is that in spite of the highlighted line, there are more people going to WDW then ever before. In my mind that makes that statement incorrect. It may be expensive, it may be what many feel is out of line, but, it has not, in any form, made it unaffordable. It's just a bigger piece of our collective income. Unaffordable is when the parks are empty. That may happen before too long, but, it hasn't happened yet.

 

[Soarin' Over Pgh]

I don't for a minute dispute all that you said in that post. I'm positive that all of it is true. The problem I have is that in spite of the highlighted line, there are more people going to WDW then ever before. In my mind that makes that statement incorrect. It may be expensive, it may be what many feel is out of line, but, it has not, in any form, made it unaffordable. It's just a bigger piece of our collective income. Unaffordable is when the parks are empty. That may happen before too long, but, it hasn't happened yet.

I dunno about that. Instead of going every year, people may be cutting back to every two or three years.

A good deal of people are the one-and-done rs because a return trip is too expensive and the cards are maxed out.

There's a solid chance people are going now because they realize it'll be too expensive later, you know, seize the day and all.

I understand the parks are more crowded now but disney is indeed pricing out the low-middle middle-middle and middle-upper classes (If you believe such things exist, but that's for another thread) in an attempt to see "what the market will bear".

 

[Goofyernmost]

I dunno about that. Instead of going every year, people may be cutting back to every two or three years.

A good deal of people are the one-and-done rs because a return trip is too expensive and the cards are maxed out.

There's a solid chance people are going now because they realize it'll be too expensive later, you know, seize the day and all.

I understand the parks are more crowded now but disney is indeed pricing out the low-middle middle-middle and middle-upper classes (If you believe such things exist, but that's for another thread) in an attempt to see "what the market will bear".

Yes, I agree but the parks are still full. It would appear that the only ones that are staying away are those that have been there when it was cheaper. New folks find it expensive but not impossible. They are changing, to some extent the people that can afford to go there, but, what does it matter, their money spends the same.

 

[ParentsOf4]

I don't for a minute dispute all that you said in that post. I'm positive that all of it is true. The problem I have is that in spite of the highlighted line, there are more people going to WDW then ever before. In my mind that makes that statement incorrect. It may be expensive, it may be what many feel is out of line, but, it has not, in any form, made it unaffordable. It's just a bigger piece of our collective income. Unaffordable is when the parks are empty. That may happen before too long, but, it hasn't happened yet.

Within the last 10-to-15 years, U.S. median household income has lagged far behind WDW price increases. Each year, a shrinking percentage of Americans can afford a WDW vacation.

As I've posted before:

In recent years, WDW's attendance gains primarily are from Brazil and Argentina. Visitors from those South American countries have median incomes of over $100K, placing them in the top 5% incomes of their respective countries.

I stand by my statement that WDW has never been so unaffordable.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Within the last 10-to-15 years, U.S. median household income has lagged far behind WDW price increases. Each year, a shrinking percentage of Americans can afford a WDW vacation.

As I've posted before:

View attachment 56179


In recent years, WDW's attendance gains primarily are from Brazil and Argentina. Visitors from those South American countries have median incomes of over $100K, placing them in the top 5% incomes of their respective countries.

I stand by my statement that WDW has never been so unaffordable.

I applaud you for trying to bring this thread back on topic, but like the price increases it's an uphill climb.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Within the last 10-to-15 years, U.S. median household income has lagged far behind WDW price increases. Each year, a shrinking percentage of Americans can afford a WDW vacation.

As I've posted before:

View attachment 56179


In recent years, WDW's attendance gains primarily are from Brazil and Argentina. Specifically, those visiting from those South American countries have median incomes of over $100K, placing them in the top 5% incomes of their respective countries.

I stand by my statement that WDW has never been so unaffordable.

Like anything affordability is sometimes a flexible thing. Yes, like many that can not afford a Rolls Royce, there are others that can. It is normal. Now if we (you or I) fall into the category of can't afford then it is a problem for us, but, just us. For everyone one that can no longer afford it they are finding others that can. The fact that the grouping of people no longer able or willing to spend that much money has merely moved up the ladder. There have been many people on the planet that have never been able to afford it. Even if the ticket price was low, the cost to get there was prohibitive.

I wish it was cheaper, because being retired, if the prices were better I might spend more time there, but, I now limit myself in the number of times I visit. Many retired people living strictly on Social Security haven't been able to go there for years. Different names, different faces. In many ways it's better for Disney to have it that way. All those new people are not complaining about falling quality or saying how things are just not like they used to be. For those people, whether we like it or not, the magic still happens.

So what it boils down to is that, if we want to go we will have to pay the prices, if we don't, we will find a different place that we can afford. I know you put a lot of effort in all those charts and grafts and I am impressed by them, but a venue like Disney is not bound by, in any way, shape or form, a chart of inflation. They are not a necessity and therefore people do not rely on them for any life sustaining reason. In my opinion, it just doesn't apply. Demand, on the other hand, totally drives the price.

 

[Mike S]

I know I'm in a minority, but Disney World is pretty affordable for me. The people I go with all pay for their own food and drinks etc. and we even split the hotel bill. I know this will all change when I have a family to pay for but right now it's pretty good. We drive up to Orlando every few months with our AP's to both Disney and Universal.

 

[SosoDude]

I agree with @ParentsOf4 post.

In '09 my family saved for 5 months to take a 6 day trip to WDW . Our trip in '12 took about 9 months to save enough. Same days, same resort, same everything. Looking at a trip for next fall ('15) and we think we need to start now for that September trip.

Our household income has increased every year in this true example. The problem is that those increased dollars don't go as far as they did. Disney's price increases don't help, but are not the total problem.

 

[CDavid]

I don't for a minute dispute all that you said in that post. I'm positive that all of it is true. The problem I have is that in spite of the highlighted line, there are more people going to WDW then ever before. In my mind that makes that statement incorrect. It may be expensive, it may be what many feel is out of line, but, it has not, in any form, made it unaffordable. It's just a bigger piece of our collective income. Unaffordable is when the parks are empty. That may happen before too long, but, it hasn't happened yet.

As you note in a later post, affordability is a relative concept. To use your example, many of us cannot afford a Rolls Royce (can I have an Aston Martin instead...). However, if you are willing to accept a 25 year old model, then most people actually can afford such an automobile.

As prices have soared at Walt Disney World guests have responded in many cases not by cancelling trips, but by more frugal spending. Guest spending is up by less than the amount of price increases, so it appears guests are spending less on shopping and dining. Room occupancy is also down; Visitors are still coming but increasingly staying in less expensive off-site hotels. These statistics are far more revealing than the total number of persons coming through the park gates, and potentially devastating for Disney. They make little or nothing from a guests' fifth or sixth theme park admission day, but resort rooms and (generally overpriced) shops and restaurants remain just as profitable every single day.

If park admission didn't get cheaper the more days you buy, but remained $99 each day, I suspect many guests might well cut back on the number of days they spend in the parks. But because later days are so cheap, families can 'save' money by opting for an extra day at Hollywood Studios instead of the trip to Universal they would really have preferred. Actual park attendance may be a bit misleading because that is not where guests are cutting back on spending (to offset the price increases).

Wouldn't they make more money without FP? People would take their time, waiting in longer lines, and thus forcing them to spend more days to see all that they want. Right?

Common sense. If you're not standing in line, you're walking from one place to another, infinitely increasing the possibility you'll stop at a shop or buy a Mickey Ice Cream Bar.

I always thought the standard ride-exit gift shop arrangement was backwards. People are always in a hurry to leave and head for the next attraction soon as the ride/show is over, but almost everyone - standby queue or waiting around for FP reservation - has time to kill before boarding. Put the gift shop first and guests may do a little shopping or have an ice cream while they wait.

 

[bhg469]

Within the last 10-to-15 years, U.S. median household income has lagged far behind WDW price increases. Each year, a shrinking percentage of Americans can afford a WDW vacation.

As I've posted before:

View attachment 56179


In recent years, WDW's attendance gains primarily are from Brazil and Argentina. Visitors from those South American countries have median incomes of over $100K, placing them in the top 5% incomes of their respective countries.

I stand by my statement that WDW has never been so unaffordable.

I would also add that people are more comfortable with credit cards than they were in the past so a disney vacation may be more appealing when points are being earned but obviously not a good way to live.

 

[bhg469]

queing through the gift shop you say?

has potential

Those gem game tablets on mine train will have access to the Disney store and nfc for magic band purchases.