Uni's New Plan For Potter Could Make Significant Dent To WDW

[Mickey_777]

I'm also just say that Disney doesn't charge you $35 to go from Splash Mountain to Thunder Mountain.

Again, this is great for Universal, but the consumer is getting screwed.

If this is successful, which it probably will be, this is bad news for the consumer.

Yep. "Hey kid here's an ice cream sundae. But if you want a spoon you'll have to pay $____ to get it."

 

[whylightbulb]

Yep. "Hey kid here's an ice cream sundae. But if you want a spoon you'll have to pay $____ to get it."

That's not even close to the same thing. If you pay for an ice cream sundae you get an ice cream sundae and everything you need to enjoy it. If you pay for a one day ticket than you get all that park has to offer. Universal is expanding its Studio park. If anyone wants to experience the new attraction they need to purchase admission to the park.

 

[Bairstow]

"Hey kid, we're gonna have milkshakes now too. Wanna buy one?"

 

[jakeman]

They are taking a page out of the Disney books on this one plus adding a twist. If you want to see everything at WDW you have to stay mutilple days and presumably get a park hopper. The same will happen at Uni/IoA, if you want to see all of Potter you will have to pay. They twist here is that if all rumors are correct is the train from one land to another. As Eddie Sotto was saying on his thread, how cool would it be if you got to take a themed train from one property to the next. Imagine going from DAK to DHS via train, transitioning thematically with changing smart screens as windows...I would love it.

But imagine going from Jungle Cruise to Pirates and being charged another day's admission.

I don't agree at all. What difference does it make what the theme is? Universal is adding a major new attraction to the Studio park and if anyone wants to see it they have to pay park admission regardless of whether it's Potter, Mummy or MIB.

You're paying twice for the same themed land.

You tell an average family that Universal Orlando has a Harry Potter themed land but then you say..."Wait a minute, we divided this up between two parks so we can charge you more to experience the whole thing." And that is supposed to elicit a positive reaction?

From a money making standpoint alone, this is a great idea. Looking at it from the consumer side, it's a raw deal to pay twice for the same land.

 

[novawildcat18]

But imagine going from Jungle Cruise to Pirates and being charged another day's admission.

You're paying twice for the same themed land.

You tell an average family that Universal Orlando has a Harry Potter themed land but then you say..."Wait a minute, we divided this up between two parks so we can charge you more to experience the whole thing." And that is supposed to elicit a positive reaction?

I don't think that their main intention was to make money off of the whole 2 parks deal. I think it just so happened that a big plot of land was able to be opened and it so happened that it was in Universal Studios and not IoA.

 

[jakeman]

I don't think that their main intention was to make money off of the whole 2 parks deal. I think it just so happened that a big plot of land was able to be opened and it so happened that it was in Universal Studios and not IoA.

It really doesn't matter what the intention was. It's how it is going to be perceived by the guest.

Is the value of the Harry Potter experience going to be worth the minimum $35 charge per person to experience both? While the additional elements of both the Studios and IOA are a positive, let's not pretend that a majority of the new guest in the past year have been going to Uni for anything but Potter.

 

[RSoxNo1]

But imagine going from Jungle Cruise to Pirates and being charged another day's admission.

You're paying twice for the same themed land.

You tell an average family that Universal Orlando has a Harry Potter themed land but then you say..."Wait a minute, we divided this up between two parks so we can charge you more to experience the whole thing." And that is supposed to elicit a positive reaction?

If Phase 2 is as well executed as Phase 1, you can be sure that the positive reviews will far outweigh the negative ones. The increase in attendance last year was for people that wanted to see Harry Potter. Sure there were those theme park fans that were indifferent towards Potter that wanted to see the ride system, but at it's essence, people were paying for the franchise and Universal delivered.

Having said that, the quality of the land isn't a function of Harry Potter, it's a function of Universal Creative, Warner Brothers and JK Rowling working together to create something great. They could have done the same thing with another franchise, had excellent execution but not the fans. It doesn't mean that the other product was inferior to Potter from a creative standpoint, it just means that it's a harder sell.

This is what Disney is facing with Avatar. The movie lends itself to an incredible immersive environment, but the selling point of the franchise is no where near that of Potter. Disney could create 3 E-Ticket attractions for Avatar that are all universally lauded for their design and experience. But the fan community for Avatar isn't as strong as it is for Potter - as such, the percetion would be that Disney failed because they didn't get the ridiculous boost that Universal received from Potter.

All I really care about regarding a franchise is "does it lend itself to an immersive environment." Harry Potter lends itself to an immersive environment, as does Avatar, Cars, Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit, Star Wars/Lucas, Tron and John Carter all lend themselves to immersive environments. However, there are obvious disconnects between each of those franchises. Harry Potter, Star Wars and Cars have huge merchandise lines and the first two cater more towards adults with that merchandise. If Disney is looking to compete with Harry Potter, Star Wars is the only viable franchise to do it from a marketing/merchandise standpoint. All of the others could compete from an "immersive environment" standpoint, but that's not the entire story.

 

[Bairstow]

You tell an average family that Universal Orlando has a Harry Potter themed land but then you say..."Wait a minute, we divided this up between two parks so we can charge you more to experience the whole thing." And that is supposed to elicit a positive reaction?

I think more Potter in general is going to elicit a positive reaction.

Besides, Disney does the same thing, putting E-ticket rides like Everest and Kilimanjaro Safaris in a park I would not otherwise bother going to.

Why couldn't they have just built those nice things at the Magic Kingdom and filled up Animal Kingdom with character breakfasts and gift shops and other things I wouldn't feel bad about missing?

 

[lebeau]

But imagine going from Jungle Cruise to Pirates and being charged another day's admission.

You're paying twice for the same themed land.

You tell an average family that Universal Orlando has a Harry Potter themed land but then you say..."Wait a minute, we divided this up between two parks so we can charge you more to experience the whole thing." And that is supposed to elicit a positive reaction?

From a money making standpoint alone, this is a great idea. Looking at it from the consumer side, it's a raw deal to pay twice for the same land.

Your analogies are terrible! Disney has lands with similar themes and attractions with the same themes in multiple parks. This is no different. It's nothing at all like being charged to go from JC to Pirates and there's no way you don't know that.

It's two different lands in two different parks that share a theme. It is in no way a ripoff to anybody. But it is a very smart business move to balance demand at both parks.

 

[stitch2008]

I take what I said back. Uni can have their wizard boy. I'll take two one billion dollar ships, a shanghai resort, and three major expansions over Harry Potter any day.

Bingo.

There in lies the problem, Disney used to be the one everyone chased, now the tables have turned... A shame really and not something I expected in my lifetime.

As DI mention, Disney will probably always remain number one, but if they start loosing market share...

So one land has changed everything? Please. HP is a great addition for Uni. But lets not get carried away.

Wait, what?
So they expect Disney to just lay idle, watching the competition grow over the years to come?

Oh yeah. Im sure the board spends all day sitting around wondering how they can keep Disney from investing in the parks. :brick:

But imagine going from Jungle Cruise to Pirates and being charged another day's admission.

You're paying twice for the same themed land.

You tell an average family that Universal Orlando has a Harry Potter themed land but then you say..."Wait a minute, we divided this up between two parks so we can charge you more to experience the whole thing." And that is supposed to elicit a positive reaction?

From a money making standpoint alone, this is a great idea. Looking at it from the consumer side, it's a raw deal to pay twice for the same land.

Told the fiancee today about all this. Shes HARDCORE POTTER FAN. She gave me this weird look and said this is the stupidest idea shes ever heard of. We both vacation on a budget and right now, we both decided that this probably is not for us. She even said they shes comfortable not going back to IOA cause shes already experienced Potter once.

 

[devoy1701]

How would you feel if Disney separated Avatarland between Epcot and DAK?

They are taking a page out of the Disney books on this one plus adding a twist. If you want to see everything at WDW you have to stay mutilple days and presumably get a park hopper. The same will happen at Uni/IoA, if you want to see all of Potter you will have to pay. They twist here is that if all rumors are correct is the train from one land to another. As Eddie Sotto was saying on his thread, how cool would it be if you got to take a themed train from one property to the next. Imagine going from DAK to DHS via train, transitioning thematically with changing smart screens as windows...I would love it.

Bingo.

And Disney doesn't have the same problem as Uni right now where one of it's parks is ridiculously popular where the other is seen as kind of lackluster...regardless of the fact that it's just one area of IoA. Disney has diversified offerings throughout it's 4 parks, not to mention other ways to keep you on property, or insuring that you will visit most or all of their theme parks, where up until this announcement, Uni has not. I have no problem with the way Uni is doing this...but asking how I would feel if Disney did the same thing such as announcing 1 new land but having it built in 2 separate parks isn't nearly the same thing in this day and age of WDW.

 

[njDizFan]

It really doesn't matter what the intention was. It's how it is going to be perceived by the guest.

Is the value of the Harry Potter experience going to be worth the minimum $35 charge per person to experience both? While the additional elements of both the Studios and IOA are a positive, let's not pretend that a majority of the new guest in the past year have been going to Uni for anything but Potter.

I completely understand your point. I would not be stoked to have to pay extra to visit both lands as a HP fan or general consumer.

Let's see how this plays out.

 

[jakeman]

If Phase 2 is as well executed as Phase 1, you can be sure that the positive reviews will far outweigh the negative ones. The increase in attendance last year was for people that wanted to see Harry Potter. Sure there were those theme park fans that were indifferent towards Potter that wanted to see the ride system, but at it's essence, people were paying for the franchise and Universal delivered.

And that's my point. Imagine those same people coming back in 3 years (or whatever) and are now being told they have to buy tickets to two theme parks to experience one franchise.

All I really care about regarding a franchise is "does it lend itself to an immersive environment." Harry Potter lends itself to an immersive environment, as does Avatar, Cars, Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit, Star Wars/Lucas, Tron and John Carter all lend themselves to immersive environments. However, there are obvious disconnects between each of those franchises. Harry Potter, Star Wars and Cars have huge merchandise lines and the first two cater more towards adults with that merchandise. If Disney is looking to compete with Harry Potter, Star Wars is the only viable franchise to do it from a marketing/merchandise standpoint. All of the others could compete from an "immersive environment" standpoint, but that's not the entire story.

I agree here as well. Star Wars really is the only thing that could take on Potter at this point. Even then though, the setting isn't as cohesive as Potter.

Tying it back into how Disney is going to react, I don't think they are going to do anything. I think they are going to continue with their plans and see how the public reacts to this pricing structure (which may change).

Whether we think it is positive or negative, Disney isn't going to show any outward sign of caring.

 

[jakeman]

It's two different lands in two different parks that share a theme. It is in no way a ripoff to anybody. But it is a very smart business move to balance demand at both parks.

While we might understand and be willing to accept that, I would think there are people out there that want to see Potterland and are then told, "Well Diagon Alley is here, but if you want to go to Hogwart's that will be $35 for each family member" they would be a little peeved.

I completely understand your point. I would not be stoked to have to pay extra to visit both lands as a HP fan or general consumer.

Let's see how this plays out.

I agree.

I should make it clear, that this is a smart, albeit very risky, business move for Uni. It's a gamble I would probably take if I was in their position.

 

[jt04]

I think it's genius. Now both of their Orlando parks are going to be able to benefit from the hottest franchise of the past 15 years. If one gate was able to see a 20% increase in attendance and you now have to visit both parks to get the entire Harry Potter Experience, i think it's going to be beneficial to both parks. Not to mention while it costs quite a bit to go to one park for one day, the added expense of visiting 2 parks is small in relation. And not only does it let the guest experience the full HP offerings, it also lets them experience a dozen other attractions in Universal Studios that they might have opted not to experience because they were only going to Universal to experience the park that had the HP attractions in it.

Uni is undertaking a potentially gamechanging formula here.

Agreed and well worth the risk in my opinion.

I have been mentioning that the new train station being built as part of the FLE keeps drawing my attention. The lack of details has made me think Disney is still deciding on what exactly it will be. And if Disney had been hearing rumors (they hired a Universal Imagineer afterall :lol that they would have a 'land' connected between two parks, then perhaps Disney is trying to create a similar bit of magic at the MK. Though you would not travel between two parks, they could make it so there is continuity and an immersive theme as part of the journey from MSUSA to the FLE.

There is a history of this with Birthdayland. But perhaps with this new potter configuration Disney will raise the bar on the immersive potential and interesting possibilities they have available if they choose.

 

[Blueliner]

In terms of Universal Studios, I really liked the feel of the Amity area,and I will miss it on future visits. That said, I think the possibilities are very intriguing for a Harry Potter expansion to the Studios side. If they build the "London" side of the Harry Potter universe on the Studios side, it certainly could transition very smoothly into the San Francisco streetscape and then to New York, etc.

It may be that there are some London elements to the expansion that are not strictly Harry Potter, which also could ease the transition. It would be even more impressive to have a proper London streetscape with the Leaky Cauldron placed inconspicuously on a side street off the beaten path (albeit with an efficient means of moving large crowds to Diagon Alley and a Gringott's ride. King's Cross could be the more conspicuous "Weenie" for the area.

In terms of the impact on Disney, I can only speak from personal experience when I say that my older kids loved Universal Studios/Islands of Adventure. In the spirng we by-passed Disney for a couple days at Universal Studios/Islands of Adventure, and we still have a day left on our passes. My wife and I are under increasing pressure from the kids to make a trip that way on our annual trip to WDW. I very much prefer the feel of WDW, but I certainly enjoy Universal Studios/Islands of Adventure and anticipate more frequent visits in the future, particularly if they are adding interesting things.

 

[HDS]

If WDW did a LOTR or Hobbit land, they would wipe US off the map..just saying.

 

[zooey]

If WDW did a LOTR or Hobbit land, they would wipe US off the map..just saying.

Universal is rumored to be pursuing LOTR as its next acquisition.

 

[whylightbulb]

But imagine going from Jungle Cruise to Pirates and being charged another day's admission.

You're paying twice for the same themed land.

You tell an average family that Universal Orlando has a Harry Potter themed land but then you say..."Wait a minute, we divided this up between two parks so we can charge you more to experience the whole thing." And that is supposed to elicit a positive reaction?

From a money making standpoint alone, this is a great idea. Looking at it from the consumer side, it's a raw deal to pay twice for the same land.

The thing is you are making it sound like customers will be paying to experience two very similar products. The fact is that they will be very different and will each stand on their own. Universal is spending hundreds of millions of dollars and whether it was physically located in IOA or USF they would still need to increase their revenue. It would come either from a one-day price hike or the way they are planning now.

 

[Horizonsfan]

This whole "why would you pay for the "same" experience twice?" argument is lacking. Unless you also believe that Disney is wrong for having: both Future World and Tomorrowland, Adventureland and AK's Asia & Africa, TSMM & BLSRS (this one has been brought up before as it's probably the most blatant), Finding Nemo Musical and TSwN, and more.