Theme Park Development Slowing

[Disday]

You would think that since, other than Tokyo Disneyland, most of their international parks have been considered big budget failures that they would want to focus on building up their domestic parks. I mean they don't exactly have a great track record with international theme parks. Yet, many people come to the U.S.A. just to visit the domestic parks.:dazzle:

 

[ABigBrassBand]

With all of the little things (logos, 40th) that they've been doing in the past week or so, it seems weird that they're shifting directions...hopefully they kicked the people off who were previously running the parks into the ground and got some real thinkers.

 

[niteobsrvr]

Diminishing Returns?

Maybe they have reached a point they are comfortable with as far as revenue generation and Attendance numbers.

There comes a point where no matter what you do, your income will not increase at the same rate as it has in the past. I think over the last 10 years we ahve seen Disney fliriting with that magic point. You don't want too low an admission price because the place will be packed to no end which diminish the guest experience. You also don't want too high a price as that will leave the parks emptier and thus not generating revenue from other sources once the guest arrives.

Additionally, maintaining something as large as Disney World erodes profit Margin. 47 square miles with nothing on it is not as big an issue for the bottom line as 47 square miles where 2/3 of the land is filled with things that need to be maintained.

Thus why not slow down development of the largest US property? Is their a need for another hotel? What is the cost to already established facilities when that next resort is added? COuld that same money be spent on an attraction whether new or jsut improved and result in the same profit increase?

 

[twinsowner]

I honestly haven't seen where Disney cares if the parks are packed or not. I think they want as many people in them as possible at all times. No matter what the guest experience is like. I would gladly pay more if the parks would be a little less crowded and could enjoy the experience instead of mass crowds every day. I say do away with all the discounts!!!! hehe

 

[Duckberg]

Maybe they have reached a point they are comfortable with as far as revenue generation and Attendance numbers.

There comes a point where no matter what you do, your income will not increase at the same rate as it has in the past. I think over the last 10 years we ahve seen Disney fliriting with that magic point. You don't want too low an admission price because the place will be packed to no end which diminish the guest experience. You also don't want too high a price as that will leave the parks emptier and thus not generating revenue from other sources once the guest arrives.

Additionally, maintaining something as large as Disney World erodes profit Margin. 47 square miles with nothing on it is not as big an issue for the bottom line as 47 square miles where 2/3 of the land is filled with things that need to be maintained.

Thus why not slow down development of the largest US property? Is their a need for another hotel? What is the cost to already established facilities when that next resort is added? COuld that same money be spent on an attraction whether new or jsut improved and result in the same profit increase?

Also known @ FIX what you GOT! Duckberg

 

[mp2bill]

If these were people who pushed to sell off WDW real estate than maybe they were not a good fit and should go. But telling people they are losing their jobs 2 days before Christmas is really bad form. I will never understand stuff like that unless they were doing something seriously wrong.

Just because the annoucment was made 2 days before Christmas does not mean that is when the people found out. I am sure the people knew about this long before it was made public.


After rereading the article, it states they were notified last week, not 2 days before Christmas

Yeah, plus, when is a good time to tell somebody they're fired? If they did it this week, it'd be bad form because it's just after Christmas. If they do it in January and it happens to be just before that person's birthday, that's bad form. Unfortunately, there's never really a good time to be told you're bing fired. Plus, I'm sure they got some sort of severance package.

 

[mp2bill]

Maybe they have reached a point they are comfortable with as far as revenue generation and Attendance numbers.

There comes a point where no matter what you do, your income will not increase at the same rate as it has in the past. I think over the last 10 years we ahve seen Disney fliriting with that magic point. You don't want too low an admission price because the place will be packed to no end which diminish the guest experience. You also don't want too high a price as that will leave the parks emptier and thus not generating revenue from other sources once the guest arrives.

Additionally, maintaining something as large as Disney World erodes profit Margin. 47 square miles with nothing on it is not as big an issue for the bottom line as 47 square miles where 2/3 of the land is filled with things that need to be maintained.

QUOTE]

I don't know how this makes sense. If they're adding something to the space, it'll be designed to make money. They're not going to add something that they need to maintain (and pay somebody to maintain it for them) if it's not bringing in money. After all, how many business do you know of that do that?

 

[Mickey is King]

nothing to worry about - there is PLENTY of new attractions and renovations in the works that will keeps us all going for quite some time.
It seems like they are negelecting some aspects of parks , but are they REALLY?
with all the new FL expansions and a few other things around the bend, I would say CHILLAX.

 

[spaceghost]

Well, nothing in that press release specifically indicates that they are cutting back on development at WDW, or elsewhere. On the surface it says that they eliminated overlapping positions, specifically ones dealing with real estate development. Personally, I'd rather they cut back on real estate development and focus on park development anyway. Only time will tell, though, I guess.