• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Trouble in paradise officially?

Naplesgolfer

Well-Known Member
I don't hear many people mentioning this but what Disney is doing now is very short-sighted. Much of their current park business is what I would call nostalgia-based.

Many, many adults go back to the parks and fall in love with them again because they went when they were children and loved the parks then. Greatly reducing how many people are going into the parks because it's too expensive has a multi decade ripple effect. How many countless thousands if not millions are not going to become future Disney diehards because they never got to go as a kid?
I get where you are coming from. But In my opinion we are NEVER getting new rides , good service and lower prices. The best you can hope for maybe , maybe, maybe (probably not until you get different people at the top) would be a better balance of service/maintence and reinvestment in the parks. The prices ,parties and add on's stay and continue to march up. That is just reality.
 

Dan Deesnee

Well-Known Member
I get where you are coming from. But In my opinion we are NEVER getting new rides , good service and lower prices. The best you can hope for maybe , maybe, maybe (probably not until you get different people at the top) would be a better balance of service/maintence and reinvestment in the parks. The prices ,parties and add on's stay and continue to march up. That is just reality.

You think we'll never get new rides?

I mean I get that what they're doing is upsetting but your view is way too negative and unrealistic. In my opinion.
 

Naplesgolfer

Well-Known Member
You think we'll never get new rides?

I mean I get that what they're doing is upsetting but your view is way too negative and unrealistic. In my opinion.
I guess I wasn't writing clearly. I think we will get new rides of course. But not fast enough to solve the capacity problem.

My real point to you was almost a play on the old phrase " Fast, cheap and good. You can only have two". With Disney you can't pay for new rides and service without the high prices. I would just like a better amount of re-investment ( like in the past ) to go along with the prices. Disney seems to want expensive, slow and not so good.
 
Last edited:

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
One could argue that indeed what comprises the "middle class" was hollowed out with globalization and the subsequent outsourcing of copious manufacturing jobs.
It's still a group of people that are deprived of things like a Disney park. Doesn't matter what caused it, it still left them out.
 

eliza61nyc

Well-Known Member
Because if Walt didn't do what Walt did there would be no Disney Company, No Disneyland, No WDW and no variety of other things that the Disney Company encompasses. He may very well be dead and not speaking to anyone, but what he accomplished with "what Walt would do" should be recognized as sound, legacy creating relevant stuff with what and how Walt created to start the solid foundation of one of the largest companies in the world. In this country alone we have to ask What would Anaheim look like today without Walt would do. What would Orlando be like without what Walt would do.

To just toss aside a process that is still promoted to bring people in but run as if it didn't exist and implying that the current management is what made these park so popular. It was Walt and Walt's crew that created that mission a valid actuality and it was subsequent management and publicly held a bunch of lies because greed is now the motivator. Greed can have a long life but, not as long as Walt's legacy and positions on the subject will. Free enterprise is a wonderful th as it has a moral compass to go along with it. Walt invented theme parks as we see them today. So yea, we should at least give lip service to what he might think about any given move within that company. However, like so many thing in life to day we toss it off as irrelevant thoughts of yesteryear and think that it is only modern thinking that is the right way.
but there is middle ground, that's my point. We get it, yes we appreciate Walt's visionary but what do you do, live in the past?? never change . It's not that we think modern is the right way but we can't go back. Cell phones, streaming are modern. Because Walt invented it, we don't improve on it?? now of course "improvement" is in the eye of the beholde but jeez how long are we going to go with "what would walt do?
 

eliza61nyc

Well-Known Member
Stick it. I don't care how long Walt's been dead, his devotion to quality, innovation and creativity should never be let go. If you don't care about that, I'm surprised you're on a Disney park forum. Surely the average Six Flags park would serve your needs?
I like both for different reasons. once again, it's not a "either/or".
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
but there is middle ground, that's my point. We get it, yes we appreciate Walt's visionary but what do you do, live in the past?? never change . It's not that we think modern is the right way but we can't go back. Cell phones, streaming are modern. Because Walt invented it, we don't improve on it?? now of course "improvement" is in the eye of the beholde but jeez how long are we going to go with "what would walt do?
No, we speculate on what he might have done differently and what he might have done their way. No one expects him to come out of the ashes and take the company back. It is just conversation. We all know that this is all it is. It is you, in this case, that have decided that we expect things to happen like we speculate if he had been alive and still running the place. It is just a topic not a demand. Who's to say what he might have actually done. So many times we hear about thing that Walt wouldn't have done for example go to the present advancement of video technology. They say that Walt would still have omni-movers. Anyone that has read anything about Walt knows that he embraced new technology and even relied on screens in 1955. (Think about "Mission to the Moon"). Wasn't in complete darkness and was two major screens. People loved it. What would make people think that today he wouldn't embrace that technology. It is quite spectacular. And modern. So we discuss it. If we decide that he would embrace it or if he wouldn't embrace it we have a 50/50 chance that we are right. We just will never know for sure. Disney is a company based on fantasy.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Weren't there were always people who were left out? Seriously, Disney was always costly.
Relatively costly, but not completely out of reach.

1623107579783.jpeg

1983 prices for complete access to MK and EPCOT. Somewhat restrictive but with effort completely doable. If you are referring to the section of society that is dirt poor and just barely able to feed themselves, then that is true, but in fairness they are restricted from everything including necessities and until everyone is financially supported, which isn't going to happen, it will remain that way.
 

networkpro

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
Yes
Relatively costly, but not completely out of reach.

View attachment 562472
1983 prices for complete access to MK and EPCOT. Somewhat restrictive but with effort completely doable. If you are referring to the section of society that is dirt poor and just barely able to feed themselves, then that is true, but in fairness they are restricted from everything including necessities and until everyone is financially supported, which isn't going to happen, it will remain that way.

In 1983 there were 100 million fewer US citizens, median income was 24K (current is 83K), and the average US plane ticket was 592 round trip.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
In 1983 there were 100 million fewer US citizens, median income was 24K (current is 83K), and the average US plane ticket was 592 round trip.
Wonderful, but what does that have to do with anything. All sections of society with the exception of the very bottom had the ability with minor amount of effort to afford to go there. It doesn't matter how many people were in the total population and since we are talking a current population if approximately 350,000,000, the difference is about 1/3rd less and yet that prices have increased about the same but that is only individually. If you have a family it is exponentially less affordable. We tend to only look at is individually, when this is supposed to be a family entertainment. If you can tell me that the individual rate is not 8 to 10 times more then the population of about 33% growth over the same time, then it might be equal.
 

networkpro

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
Yes
Wonderful, but what does that have to do with anything. All sections of society with the exception of the very bottom had the ability with minor amount of effort to afford to go there. It doesn't matter how many people were in the total population and since we are talking a current population if approximately 350,000,000, the difference is about 1/3rd less and yet that prices have increased about the same but that is only individually. If you have a family it is exponentially less affordable. We tend to only look at is individually, when this is supposed to be a family entertainment. If you can tell me that the individual rate is not 8 to 10 times more then the population of about 33% growth over the same time, then it might be equal.

The parks didn't grow by 33% so that's the scarcity of product, and Disneyworld isn't paying 1983 prices for anything they use to provide the experiences they sell.
 

jt04

Well-Known Member
Outside forces would have been that they were deleting a large part of the middle class? That is a goal? There were outside forces when Mr. Disney created his park, but he had the courage and understanding of human nature to ignore those forces and it created a model that not only survived but survived spectacularly. Wall Street influence is mostly an arm of the wealthy. Many people have purchased Disney Stock, many just to say they owned a piece, albeit small, of Disney. They aren't the movers and the shakers that determine the actions of corporations. It's the big boys that play the game for money that do that. If they thought that selling off Disney was going to be more profitable for them, they would do it in a heart beat. That is the Big picture.

Strange how everybody tends to ignore the labor costs, regulatory hoops and tax burdens currently that if they existed in 1955 would never have allowed Disneyland to get completed. Probably not even started.

If it weren't for private sector investors you wouldn't have Epcot either. Or any park since in Orlando. Certainly not at the scale we see. 🎯
 

DisneyHead123

Active Member
Disney World is supply constrained because they have chosen to be such. Much like a monopoly, Disney will set supply to meet the target profit in the face of demand. Disney still has plenty of real estate with which to build upon, including in the existing parks. They are supply constrained because for the last 10+ years, their strategy has not been to increase supply (i.e., park capacity), but rather to "better utilize" existing capacity. FP+ was all about shifting demand to lesser demand rides. The next trick up their sleeve is to double sell the parks, with a standard ticket and an after hours ticket. Now they can cater to twice the guests with the same amount of capacity (in their minds). Disney's capacity today is, I believe, probably lower than it was 10 years. I've not done the math, but seeing as there have been no major additions, and many losses or replacements with diminished capacity to what was there before, I'm fairly confident that's accurate.

Of course, we would all prefer that Disney build more capacity so they could increase the quantity of sales. Instead, they are focused on (1) the "quality" of the guest they want to sell their limited capacity to and (2) reducing the hours a ticket is good for so that they can then also sell an after hours ticket. And then, they don't need to ask the board for investment money, they'll continue to bleed the parks for every once they can get, and sadly, continue to reap the value from the hard-plowed investments of those that came before them.
Regarding capacity over the years... interesting question, I would be curious to know the answer. I tried Googling it briefly but didn't come up with anything.

Regarding splitting the day into 2 tickets... I have said the same thing myself. There are many areas where I'm uncertain how things will play out in terms of FastPasses and so on, but this one seems fairly inevitable. It might not be an "official" split but I can see there eventually being a running nighttime ticket in the same way there is a "festival" for almost every season now. The after hours Christmas party followed by Winterfest followed by Springfest followed by... you get the idea.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
In 1983 there were 100 million fewer US citizens, median income was 24K (current is 83K), and the average US plane ticket was 592 round trip.
I sincerely doubt that the average median income is currently 83K, but maybe where you live. Back then people drove there in droves. Traffic on I-95 was mostly WDW bound.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom