WDW Spirited Quickees

[Funmeister]

Sorry, but I stopped reading and taking your post seriously when I read the above sentence.

Sorry...let me explain. What I meant was how can Disney "catch up" with Universal at this point until it comes down to a major expansion? Let's say Cars Land is built and opens 2014/2015. At that point the rate Universal is going they will already have another phase of Potter in development and/or more.

I was trying to make a point that it does not seem Disney will be able to "catch up" in the current race until it comes to a much bigger expansion. SUre I said fifth gate but could have easily said world expansion but Orlando is where Universal is "winning" by taking market share from Disney.

Would you agree if a fifth gate is ever built it will be because of pressure of direct competition and the want to expand DVC? I am not one hoping for a fifth theme park because, as you know, they cannot even maintain the ones they have.

WDW1974, what do you think Disney's move would be if Universal expanded (another theme park and a few hotels) withinin the next 15 to 20 years?

A huge reason why DAK was even greenlit was because the folks down the street were developing IOA. Does anyone think that WDW needed a fourth gate at the time? When I worked in mouse marketing that there was a plan to announce a fifth gate shortly after DAK opened in 1998. I know I am new to this board but I do know a thing or two. I can tell you I am not a fanboi dreaming of Disney winning a ficticious fight over Universal based on who has the largest geodesic sphere or simulator ride. What I can tell you is that there IS a war based on market share. Losing or winning the market share battle is what my original post was based on...not some new technology for an attraction that is being cloned...blah, blah, blah. Sorry you did not take it serious...I was interested to see what you and others thought...guess I can wait.

 

[nytimez]

Universal didn't create its attendance growth with a third gate. They created it by putting something awesome in an existing park.

So, why would anyone invest in an a new "gate" when we have several billion dollars in evidence right now that the gate itself is unnecessary if you give people a new reason to visit -- or a new reason to stay longer -- in what's already there?

 

[Funmeister]

Universal didn't create its attendance growth with a third gate. They created it by putting something awesome in an existing park.

So, why would anyone invest in an a new "gate" when we have several billion dollars in evidence right now that the gate itself is unnecessary if you give people a new reason to visit -- or a new reason to stay longer -- in what's already there?

At this time they would not build a third gate. In the future (next 10 to 20 years) a new gate makes sense with additional hotels to take market share away from other resorts. The Disney philosphy has and always will be to keep guests on thier property as long as possible which increases the per cap with each night visited. Why wouldnt Universal want that same business success?

"So, why would anyone invest in an a new "gate" when we have several billion dollars in evidence right now that the gate itself is unnecessary if you give people a new reason to visit -- or a new reason to stay longer -- in what's already there?"

If that is the case then why did Disney build EPCOT, Disney-MGM Studios and Animal Kingdom? The Magic Kingdom is currently experiencing the largest expansion in park history that could have been developed in the '70's and 80's. So I guess you are saying they should not have built EPCOT?

 

[Californian Elitist]

Universal didn't create its attendance growth with a third gate. They created it by putting something awesome in an existing park.

So, why would anyone invest in an a new "gate" when we have several billion dollars in evidence right now that the gate itself is unnecessary if you give people a new reason to visit -- or a new reason to stay longer -- in what's already there?

Exactly. DCA is enough proof. Some care was taken into the park and now attendance is going through the roof. The DLR didn't need a third gate to boost its attendance.

 

[nytimez]

So I guess you are saying they should not have built EPCOT?

Where did I say that?

 

[pixargal]

IMO, bigger is not necessarily better. Perhaps WDW is so large that it is difficult to maintain a top show quality. I can't even begin to comprehend how much man-power, resources, and money is needed. That may explain why '74 had no paper towels to dry his hands. They need to put some love into the parks they already have, not open a new one.

 

[Funmeister]

Where did I say that?

"So, why would anyone invest in an a new "gate" when we have several billion dollars in evidence right now that the gate itself is unnecessary if you give people a new reason to visit -- or a new reason to stay longer -- in what's already there?"

Then why did they build EPCOT if the Magic Kingdom (and the resort) was doing extremely well? That is what I meant...not that you actually said that...sorry for making it seem that way.

 

[nytimez]

"So, why would anyone invest in an a new "gate" when we have several billion dollars in evidence right now that the gate itself is unnecessary if you give people a new reason to visit -- or a new reason to stay longer -- in what's already there?"

Then why did they build EPCOT if the Magic Kingdom (and the resort) was doing extremely well? That is what I meant...not that you actually said that...sorry for making it seem that way.

I'm having a hard time seeing how you'd get that from what I wrote. You specifically wrote about the next 10-20 years. I was replying to what you wrote.

If I said we don't need any new Major League Baseball teams over the next 10-20 years, would you take that mean I was against all expansion teams in MLB history?

 

[Funmeister]

IMO, bigger is not necessarily better. Perhaps WDW is so large that it is difficult to maintain a top show quality. I can't even begin to comprehend how much man-power, resources, and money is needed. That may explain why '74 had no paper towels to dry his hands. They need to put some love into the parks they already have, not open a new one.

I agree. I am not saying Universal would be better if they were bigger. I am saying that Universal would have better positioning to gain more market share than what they currently have to work with in order to do that. Look at it from a business perspective and not who has the largest, coolest, most expensive attraction but what would it take for Universal to keep more people on property longer? There are per cap figures based on every guest that walks on property. If those goals are met, which many have exceeded due to Potter then they can focus on new ventures to gain a higher per cap. If the overall perc cap of the resort itself begins to wane then a new park, land or attraction is used to get the attention of buyers to come back. Another park simply gives them more inventory to do so. In Disney's case they let thier inventory become stale and is hurting them. When I mentioned Disney is "lagging" behind Universdal I do nto mean Universal is putting them out of business. What I mean is that someone should be fired for allowing money to slip away due to one thing they have had control over since day one and that is the level of quality of their product. When you skimp on quality, which you have been known for since you began, and you start to cut corners it does more damage than most people think.

 

[Californian Elitist]

"So, why would anyone invest in an a new "gate" when we have several billion dollars in evidence right now that the gate itself is unnecessary if you give people a new reason to visit -- or a new reason to stay longer -- in what's already there?"

Then why did they build EPCOT if the Magic Kingdom (and the resort) was doing extremely well? That is what I meant...not that you actually said that...sorry for making it seem that way.

Magic Kingdom was built almost to fund EPCOT. EPCOT was always part of the Florida project.

Even if it wasn't, you even said yourself Magic Kingdom was successful and in good shape. It's not the same right now. The parks need help. Doesn't make sense to build another park to mismanage and neglect. They need to fix the current parks before they even think about building another one.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Then why did they build EPCOT if the Magic Kingdom (and the resort) was doing extremely well? That is what I meant...not that you actually said that...sorry for making it seem that way.

At the time EPCOT Center was built, Orlando was not the market it is today. There were only two theme parks at that time, the Magic Kingdom and SeaWorld. Now there are seven big parks and many other tourist attractions and activities. A new gate is a massive investment that dramatically increases operating costs. Disney's strategy to capture whole visits has made them far too dependent on that model and they must get people to come with offers such as free dining and other discounts. Universal also generates goodwill with the community, with whom they must more actively deal, if they do not follow the "us only" route of Disney.

 

[Funmeister]

Magic Kingdom was built almost to fund EPCOT. EPCOT was always part of the Florida project.

Even if it wasn't, you even said yourself Magic Kingdom was successful and in good shape. It's not the same right now. The parks need help. Doesn't make sense to build another park to mismanage and neglect. They need to fix the current parks before they even think about building another one.

I agree with you from a Disney perspective. From a Universal perspective I can see why they would want to expand in the upcoming years to offer more inventory to keep guests on their property. BUT if Universal were to build a new park do you think Disney would just invest in current parks or would their hand be forced to build another gate? Petty games like this do exist in this theme park war. There is a reason Universal (and Sea World in the past) matches Disney ticket price increases within 24 hours and it is not because Universal wants to make more money. It is because people could feel that the Universal product is inferior because it is cheaper. The park expansion theory could be justified the same way.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I agree with you from a Disney perspective. From a Universal perspective I can see why they would want to expand in the upcoming years to offer more inventory to keep guests on their property. BUT if Universal were to build a new park do you think Disney would just invest in current parks or would their hand be forced to build another gate? Petty games like this do exist in this theme park war. There is a reason Universal (and Sea World in the past) matches Disney ticket price increases within 24 hours and it is not because Universal wants to make more money. It is because people could feel that the Universal product is inferior because it is cheaper. The park expansion theory could be justified the same way.

No, nothing short of big changes in how people vacation will cause a new park to be built. A fifth gate at Walt Disney World, like the fourth before it, will not generate new visitors, just take visitors from someplace else and that will very much include other Walt Disney World parks. This all happens while massively increasing operating costs.

 

[Californian Elitist]

I agree with you from a Disney perspective. From a Universal perspective I can see why they would want to expand in the upcoming years to offer more inventory to keep guests on their property. BUT if Universal were to build a new park do you think Disney would just invest in current parks or would their hand be forced to build another gate? Petty games like this do exist in this theme park war. There is a reason Universal (and Sea World in the past) matches Disney ticket price increases within 24 hours and it is not because Universal wants to make more money. It is because people could feel that the Universal product is inferior because it is cheaper. The park expansion theory could be justified the same way.

I think if Universal were to build another park, it would PROBABLY encourage TDO to put some work into their current parks. I just don't see the need for Universal Florida to build another park. Potter is doing wonders for them and they continue to put new attractions into their parks. That's already getting more people to visit the parks. There really isn't a need for another park. Universal is making plenty of money without it.

 

[pixargal]

I agree. I am not saying Universal would be better if they were bigger. I am saying that Universal would have better positioning to gain more market share than what they currently have to work with in order to do that. Look at it from a business perspective and not who has the largest, coolest, most expensive attraction but what would it take for Universal to keep more people on property longer? There are per cap figures based on every guest that walks on property. If those goals are met, which many have exceeded due to Potter then they can focus on new ventures to gain a higher per cap. If the overall perc cap of the resort itself begins to wane then a new park, land or attraction is used to get the attention of buyers to come back. Another park simply gives them more inventory to do so. In Disney's case they let thier inventory become stale and is hurting them. When I mentioned Disney is "lagging" behind Universdal I do nto mean Universal is putting them out of business. What I mean is that someone should be fired for allowing money to slip away due to one thing they have had control over since day one and that is the level of quality of their product. When you skimp on quality, which you have been known for since you began, and you start to cut corners it does more damage than most people think.

You are so correct about Disney getting stale and skimping on quality, there is no excuse for it. But, hopefully, (it sounds like it from some of the insiders on here) that things are moving in the right direction.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Universal creating a 3rd gate is going to be tough, not just for space reasons, but also because the other two parks are going to have a somewhat logical link that will necessitate buying a multi park ticket. Creating the 3rd gate, unless it's truly a spectacular park could be a tough sell on top of that.

 

[cheezbat]

Universal creating a 3rd gate is going to be tough, not just for space reasons, but also because the other two parks are going to have a somewhat logical link that will necessitate buying a multi park ticket. Creating the 3rd gate, unless it's truly a spectacular park could be a tough sell on top of that.

I doubt Uni would have a problem building an awesome third park. They have been doing really well with all of their newer attractions in the past five years, and I don't see them skimping and going cheap anytime soon. Heck, for all we know a third park could bring us a Lord of the Rings land, as well as Skull Island with a new ride for Kong and a land for the classic Monsters too.

They continue to push the envelope...and give people quality parks with friendly staff, good food, awesome rides, and things you cant experience elsewhere....people will come

 

[stevehousse]

Ya but where in the world would they put it???

 

[mrssparrow]

Please don't yell at me..... I have been on here for years and do not post that often. I have always read posts by WDW1974 and Lee and have searched not only on here but google. Am I missing something? Are they employees of WDW, just in the know, ??? I know many look to hear your advice, suggestions, knowledge but I'm just curious and a bit confused. Again please don't yell. I don't mean to hijack the thread. Please answer if you don't mind and carry on

 

[WDW1974]

Is Iger Ike's puppet? I'd never heard of Ike before this past weekend, so I'm just trying to remember exactly what I was told about Ike that I didn't write about online.

I wouldn't call Iger anyone's puppet.

But I'd also say that Ike and John have the ability to pull his strings with the BoD based on how much their films/IP brings to the company.