Universal vs. Disney

[raven]

Not quite.

A little too much extra land actually. Now granted, I'm sure they made a tidy profit from selling off land that they got for dirt (no pun intended) cheap in the 1960's, but Disney's primary business isn't really about real estate. There's nothing to indicate that when Disney bought the land in the first place, they had any intention of holding onto it for few decades and then selling it. Universal, on the other hand, hasn't over-purchased land, and there's nothing to indicate that they wish they had bought more.

Like I said...Great planning!

Walt didn't want a repeat in Florida of what happened in California. They had no room to expand and the population grew up around them and locked them in. In Florida he bought enough acres (for cheap) that it wouldn't happen again. Part of the land was to be used for conservation and he planned to never develope it. But it acts as a buffer to the rest of the population unlike what they have in California.

But what do I know. I'm not truely a Disney fan.

 

[agent86]

Yes. A lot of the land in WDW is also reserved for preservation as well so they would never develope it. That doesn't mean that "Disney isn't doing anything with all that land" as some members think.

What you're referring to is the portion of the land (about one quarter) that was established as a nature preserve and never to be developed.

Regardless, none of this means that Disney couldn't have placed their theme parks closer together as they did at Universal. You just don't want to admit that was great planning on Universal's part. And it's also the primary reason, as I stated earlier, why WDW doesn't do one day park hoppers like Universal does. It has nothing to do with Universal's parks having "not enough to do" as has been suggested. :hammer:

 

[agent86]

Walt didn't want a repeat in Florida of what happened in California. They had no room to expand and the population grew up around them and locked them in. In Florida he bought enough acres (for cheap) that it wouldn't happen again. Part of the land was to be used for conservation and he planned to never develope it. But it acts as a buffer to the rest of the population unlike what they have in California.

But what do I know. I'm not truely a Disney fan.

If they've since sold portions of it off, then they had more land than they could use. It's not that difficult a concept to grasp. :hammer:

Oh and the land you're referencing as the nature preserve has nothing to do with the land I'm referring to.

 

[raven]

What you're referring to is the portion of the land (about one quarter) that was established as a nature preserve and never to be developed.

Regardless, none of this means that Disney couldn't have placed their theme parks closer together as they did at Universal. You just don't want to admit that was great planning on Universal's part. And it's also the primary reason, as I stated earlier, why WDW doesn't do one day park hoppers like Universal does. It has nothing to do with Universal's parks having "not enough to do" as has been suggested. :hammer:

:veryconfu Disney DIDN'T WANT their parks close together in Florida and Disney DOES offer one-day hoppers.

Seriously, you are digging yourself a bigger hole with every post.

 

[unkadug]

While Disney's main business may NOT be real estate, they are constantly buying and selling property.

 

[raven]

If they've since sold portions of it off, then they had more land than they could use. It's not that difficult a concept to grasp. :hammer:

Don't you realize how much money that land is going for now? Personally this sounds like a great idea from Disney during a slumping economy. Cheers to them for doing it.

 

[agent86]

The funny part about that is that I probably know way more than you do about the company.

I think you'd be in for a rude awakening if you wanted to pit your knowledge of Disney against mine.

But regardless, having a deep knowledge of something is not the same as having a deep appreciation for it, or truly understanding the facts and figures that have merely been committed to memory. I've met plenty of people who could quote any scripture in the Bible at will, but who have deep ethical and moral shortcomings. I know people who can spout off all kinds of technical data about cameras and photography, but they couldn't take a decent picture if their life depended on it.

Likewise, you can read up on Disney history all you want, and you can memorize all kinds of facts and figures about Disney, but that doesn't mean you truly have an appreciation for what Disney is really about. I don't get the impression you really have a depth of knowledge in this area. When I brought up the issue of Disney CMs (the exceptions, not the norm) who behave in a manner that represents the company poorly, that could have been your opportunity to chime in and prove that you have an open mind by acknowledging there are CMs who do this, and that you have concerns about it too. But instead, your only answer was "THIS IS A DISNEY FAN SITE". This isn't indicative of someone who has a deep understanding of Disney. It's more indicative of someone who is blinded by some biases, and unwilling to own up to it. :wave:

 

[agent86]

Don't you realize how much money that land is going for now? Personally this sounds like a great idea from Disney during a slumping economy. Cheers to them for doing it.

Once again, you've let your lack of Disney knowledge show, as well as your lack of knowledge in current events. You're correct that it was a financially smart move (if only short term) for Disney to sell the land and make money. But they didn't do so in this current "slumping economy". This was several years ago when real estate prices were still climbing. To do it now during this "slumping economy" would be foolish. Lucky for Disney, the reality doesn't match your understanding of the facts.

All that aside though, that wasn't the point. But by now I think you realize that and are just ignoring the real point I was making because you don't have an answer for it. :wave:

 

[the-reason14]

Universal's Express Pass system is vastly superior to Disney's antiquated Fast Pass system. I have no doubt that if Disney had thought of doing it the way Universal does it, that's how Fast Pass would be working today. Fast Pass is cumbersome because not only do guests have to stand in line to get a Fast Pass out of a machine, but then they have to worry about making sure they're back during the window of time given on the ticket. On many attractions, the Fast Passes run out early, so guests have to plan ahead and strategize about getting them. So much about a typical Disney vacation these days is about guests being required to do all kinds of planning (which is something that most people don't want to have to worry about while they're on vacation).

In contrast, Universal's Express Pass system is simple and effortless. If you're staying at one of the hotels, you automatically have one. No need to worry about what time to visit a particular attraction or having to constantly go find kiosks that disperse the passes for their specific attraction. Just flash the pass and you're all set. For guests not staying at one of the hotels, there is the option to purchase one. Until recently, I was among those who thought that was a waste of money. But I have to say, on my most recent trip last August, we sprang for those and it was awesome having them.

Thats fine and cool and all, but I can guarantee that many people that walk through the turnstyles of any WDW park would be more likely to want to hit as many attractions as possible and wait as short as possible, rather than stand in hour long lines and see just a few big attractions.

 

[agent86]

Thats fine and cool and all, but I can guarantee that many people that walk through the turnstyles of any WDW park would be more likely to want to hit as many attractions as possible and wait as short as possible, rather than stand in hour long lines and see just a few big attractions.

Given those specific options (i.e. stand in hour long lines versus anything else you mentioned) you'll get no argument from me. But I think it's rather short-sighted to assume that everyone who visits a theme park goes with the goal of "hitting as many attractions as possible". So I'm afraid that despite your claim that you "can guarantee" it, you actually can't.

 

[ChrisFL]

I'd like to take this time to mention that Universal HAD bought 2,000 more acres near Lockheed Martin, but sold them after the attendance declines from 9/11.

 

[WDW1974]

Feel free to join in! Even if we don't happen to agree, it would be nice to discuss this topic with someone who is rational, intelligent and actually understands how business works. :wave:

Thanks. And I do try ... (just ask my critics!)

But I really have nothing to add right now ... I enjoy both WDW and Universal a tremendous amount and feel there are things they each do better than the other.

There are folks who mindlessly choose to rip either one simply because it is different and I think that's a very weak argument.

I am looking forward very much to seeing TDR for the first time this year ... and Universal Studios Japan too!

So, I'll leave you all to continue the playful bantering ...

 

[Frank Stallone]

Richard alert

 

[Mike 08]

this looks like fun. let me join in.

Universal= can be done in one day. two days max.

WDW= can be done in six or seven days.

wheres the comparison?

no one is going to fly to Orlando to go to a two day park. its senseless. so their customers will remain people that live in Florida and people that are visiting WDW and have an extra day. WDW on the other hand gets people from all around the world. so the idea that WDW is going to lose a significant amount of business to them is ridiculous.

 

[ChrisFL]

this looks like fun. let me join in.

Universal= can be done in one day. two days max.

WDW= can be done in six or seven days.

wheres the comparison?

no one is going to fly to Orlando to go to a two day park. its senseless. so their customers will remain people that live in Florida and people that are visiting WDW and have an extra day. WDW on the other hand gets people from all around the world. so the idea that WDW is going to lose a significant amount of business to them is ridiculous.

agent86 your temper tantrums are boring. i heard that you got punished for a month when you put a Universal Studios Rules! bumper sticker on your moms pick up truck. awwww.

Why 6-7 days for Disney, they only have 4 parks? And AK is 1/2 day park.

 

[Mike 08]

Why 6-7 days for Disney, they only have 4 parks? And AK is 1/2 day park.

its a six day park because I have a 3 year old daughter. and i dont mean that she slows us down. I mean that we go on every ride in each park. So while you might skip FantasyLand all together we go on every ride there. we try to go on every ride and watch every show in all of the parks at WDW. last month i stayed for five days, was at the parks from morning till close with EMH and still missed out on alot of rides. so ya it really is a six day park at least.

 

[Captain Chaos]

This is something that was ingenious in their design, which Disney didn't think to do until they copied the idea in California. If Disney had two of their theme parks in Florida that close to each other, they'd offer a one day park hopper too. With the current layout, it makes no sense, financially, for them to do so. It's pretty simple economics actually. If you only have one day to visit WDW, and you have the option to park hop, you're very likely going to do it. The problem, however, is that most people would be spending their time hitting all the rides they could in one park, then hopping in their car to do the same thing at the next park. This leaves very little time for souvenir shopping and eating in the parks' restaurants. At Universal, guests just have to walk from one park to the other, and it's an easy walk. The infrastructure at Universal was very well thought out and very well put together.

1. They DO offer a one day park hopper... Before stating you know so much about Disney, check your facts... That statement proves you know NOTHING...

2. So, Universal being landlocked is now ingenious on their part?? When the argument was being made that Universal doesn't add new attractions, one of the reasons given was that they have no room to expand, which was a bad thing.. Now, being locked is a GREAT business decision? Which is it, good or bad??

3. Disneyland has the same issue Universal Orlando has: AMOUNT OF SPACE!! Disney didn't copy Universal when they put California Adventure next to Disneyland.. They HAD to put California Adventure where they did because they did not have the luxury of space... Much like IOA was put right next door to Universal... They did not have the luxury of SPACE

It is amazing how you try to twist people's words around to try to fit your agenda of coming to a Disney site and promoting Universal.. I hope Universal is paying you big bucks to infiltrate a Disney fan site.. Actually, if I were your boss, I'd fire you since you haven't made one good argument yet....

This will be my last post in this thread... I just had to get more facts straightened out from Universal Undercover Agent86's lies before the mods close this one up...

 

[The_CEO]

Ditto on Dxer's response. My time has come to make my exit. Agent86's fire needs to be extinguished..

 

[agent86]

and yes i one hundred percent stand by two day park vs a six day park.
ok take kids out of it.
if I or you for that matter go to WDW alone and go on every ride in all four parks and go through World Showcase it will take you at least six days. unless your there during a school week.

if I or you for that matter go to Universal Studios alone and go on every ride in their two parks its a two day affair.

so kids aside its still six vs two.

I'd be curious to know what your typical park itinerary is. I'd be willing to bet that your six days at Disney are spent fully immersed in the parks, taking your time and soaking it all in. Whereas your one or two days at Universal are likely spent rushing around, skipping stuff, and doing it all as fast as possible just so you can say it only takes a day or two to see it all.

 

[Skip]

ok i get it WDW is more for families and Universal is for teens and twenty somethings. but as part of that demographic (twenty something) I have to say Universal is nothing amazing. simulators are lame and your rollercoasters are tame. i can name alot of better roller coaster parks. id rather go to six flags great adventure any day. they have the tallest and fastest steel roller coaster in the world (kinga ka) and the tallest and fastest wooden roller coaster in the world (el toro) so have fun on your spiderman simulator. i go on real rides.

The "Spiderman simulator" isn't a great ride? Funny, I'm pretty sure most Universal AND Disney fans believe Spiderman to be one of the most incredible attractions ever in any theme park.

Universal contains two incredible parks with incredible rides, on par with (and in some cases better than) what's offered at Disney.