When do we get answers?

[speck76]

The investment to travel to WDW is far greater for most people than to travel to a regional park.

If the regional park adds a new attraction, people can gas up their car, drive 2 hours, and drive back at the end of the day....The cost is not huge, and most likely, the addmission, or the meals, are the most costly investment on the trip.

If the average guest wants to go to WDW, the have to purchase plane tickets, reserve a hotel room, take considerable time off of work.....the investment is much larger.

A new attraction will give people a reason to come back to WDW, but it is not, for most people, the deciding factor.......if WDW opened a new, original E-ticket every year, it would not probably increase the visits by the typical guest.

 

[speck76]

That's because HM is 34 years old. An attraction that gets the Fastpass treatment and is that old isn't going anywhere. Now, WWTBAM just turned four years old. Isn't pulling FP from what should still be a fairly new attraction have you worried? To me, that's saying that Disney overestimated it's long-term popularity...especially since attendance is declining before it can even shake off its semi-newness (and the fact that the show it's based on has run out of steam doesn't help either). Hence, I wouldn't be surprised to see a replacement sooner rather than later. I'm not saying it's going to happen tomorrow. Probably in 1-2 years.

maybe IJA will replace it :lookaroun

:lol: :lol:

 

[LoisMustDie]

Im puzzled, if WDW is aimed at tourists are we saying that they dont /shouldn’t be focussed on repeat guests when adding attractions,

No, that's not what we're saying. WDW should not be targeting LOCAL guests (who visit once a year or more), not all repeat guests. In fact, WDW hopes for guests to come every 3-5 years, so they can spend more money on passes, hotels, restaurants, merchandise, etc than the locals, who only buy an AP, eat at fast-food places and don't stay in the hotels at all.

I can only speak personally, but this year Im doing other things as I dont want to get bored with WDW and two copied attractions while exciting are not the same as a fresh experience.

First you complain that Disney should be adding attractions every year, now you complain about the 2 MAJOR attractions added this year? Make up your mind!

Which, perhaps its just me, I don’t count it as doing fine.

Have you seen attendance figures? Hotel occupancy? Resort profit margins? Because those are the indications on how a resort is doing, not how many attractions are built during the year. Universal adds nothing but a stage show this year, so by your logic they must really be doing poorly!

My post is based on opinion, none of which Im trying to dress as fact, but it would appear what you are both saying is that Disney doesn’t have to try too hard, cause, well its Disney.

That's not even close to what we were saying. We were saying that building attractions for each park in WDW every year is simply bad business. So actually, they ARE "trying harder" to be successful by NOT building attractions every year.

Luckily however Universal management is inept and has failed to build on the gains made in recent years. Or has it, given the numbers of my fellow Brits who visit and dont do Disney, "cause its for kids".

So you're saying that Universal improves by doing nothing, but Disney is failing because it builds 2 major attractions this year? And then you complain about Disney doing nothing? A coherent argument would be nice.

Like all consumers who are not happy with the product, Im trying something else, I still have loyalty to the brand, its just not unquestioned loyalty.

Due to your alarmingly fast changing of logic, I fail to see why you are so unhappy.

 

[LoisMustDie]

maybe IJA will replace it :lookaroun

:lol: :lol:

Oh God...let's not start that again, shall we? :brick:

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

A new attraction will give people a reason to come back to WDW, but it is not, for most people, the deciding factor.......if WDW opened a new, original E-ticket every year, it would not probably increase the visits by the typical guest.

Perhaps its because Im looking at a trip to Florida more than a trip to Disney. On a Disney board Id expect WDW to be the focal point, but where Im arguing from is that Disney obviously wants you to spend more time on property, hence the dining option. Im saying that unless there’s new attractions and less closed buildings why should I pay park admission. I can still stay on site but there’s plenty of things to do both non Disney and non park.

If my argument is so fundamentally flawed why are most people classing MGM and AK as half day parks? and when was the last additional attraction added to the MK or Epcot?

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

OK Louis Ill KISS. Avoiding quotes so as not to confuse by adding comments that are irrelevant to what s been written, try it some time.

Universal have done nothing, well if you ignore IOA that is, a park that they have since failed to add to, hence my point about failing to capitalise. Can you understand that, im not going too fast.

Point 2 WDW has added two major rides, with me so far, but I can experience them out with WDW, so while they are fun, they are not fresh. Understand?

Point 3 was about my opinion, didn’t know it was possible to get your own opinion wrong but I guess im not as smart as you, your saying numbers mean everything, I take it your an accountant, if that’s the case i should eat cow pats I mean 100 million flies cant be wrong. (that buy the way was humour)

Point 4 Universal IOA needs a new major attraction ASAP IMHO which is what i thought we were discussing, unless Ive wandered into a Disney operating board meeting.

Point 5 Sorry but my understanding of the post was thatyou implied that Disney doesn’t have to act like other parks cause they are the market leader, I was trying to raise the point that you stay in front by being imaginative and delivering what your customers want. Closed up buildings not being the top of the list.

Point 6 Why is my logic difficult to fathom? Im staying at the resort but Im going to other parks to do things I have never done or haven’t tried for years. Where’s the logic mix up there?

I trust this is now to your satisfaction.

 

[speck76]

Although the new attractions this year are clones, they are new to the target audiance of WDW. Not many people that visit WDW visit DL.....the largest feeder markets into Orlando are New York City, Chicago, and Boston.....DL attracts a regional crowd.

WDW does not need to add "additional" attractions, as there is no need for additional capacity. The parks, although doing better, are not running consistently at or near capacity, not even during peak time periods. Even if attendance was to get on average closer to capacity levels, they could reopen seasonal attractions (WoL and Timekeeper), before they added additional attractions.

The only reason to even add replacement attractions is to keep the parks fresh, and give the marketing department something to market. That being said, the best year ever for MK attendance was 1997 (17+ million guests....most years are 14-15million) and that year NOTHING was added except a cake overlay on the castle.

Now, for my chicken/egg theory. If the parks added additional attractions to the point where any park could not be fully visited in 1 day, they could perhaps increase attendance, simply because not only would they still get the visitors on day 1, they would also get a second day (or half day) from each guest.

The problem with that theory is that would require guests to extend their vacation, and so far, that is not happening.

In 1997, Orlando had 33.7 million visitors, and on average, they stayed 3.5 days. In 2003, Orlando had 44.98million visitors, and on average, they stayed 3.7 days. With the addition of 2 major parks (and Discovery Cove), the average guest is only staying .2 additional days.

This would mean that if each Disney park were to become a multi-day park itself, attendance could exceed at some parks, and tank at others.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

I can appreciate what you are saying but two things,

Im sure your aware the economy terrorism and weather are far greater influences on park attendance than rides and all have had varying degrees of impact on Orlando’s traditional visitor groups over the last few years.

What is desirable from a guest perspective and from the Disney operating stand are obviously at odds. Its about the middle ground, unfortunately IMHO too much creativity and guest satisfaction is being sacrificed to improve the bottom line, while at the same time investing huge amounts of money in an attraction does not guarantee its success. Im not going to argue with the figures quoted on here so if they are to be believed Disney has spent at least $70 million on themeing above the cost of normal coasters (which obviously have there own development costs) You have to start to wonder if this is worth it, given that most people prefer to blast past the themeing and get on the ride.

Space Mountain and RnRC are basic concepts that have benefited from imaginative thinking, not every piece of building has to be a $100 million work of art.

 

[peter11435]

Space Mountain and RnRC are basic concepts that have benefited from imaginative thinking, not every piece of building has to be a $100 million work of art.

Well RnRC cost about 70 million. And just so you know 10-15 million is for a great coaster. The new ROLLER SOAKER at Hershey park cost just 6 million.

 

[speck76]

I can appreciate what you are saying but two things,

Im sure your aware the economy terrorism and weather are far greater influences on park attendance than rides and all have had varying degrees of impact on Orlando’s traditional visitor groups over the last few years.

But even in 2000 and early 2001, (2000 is considered the best (most optimal) overall year for visitation in Orlando) the average LOS was not over 3.7 days per visitor.

When Universal built IOA, they did so on the philosophy that if Universal Studios was getting 9 million people per year, each park would then get 9 million people....guests would extend their stay to go to both parks. This never happened. What did occur is that both parks together got about 10 million visitors.....even last year, the best year for Universal in the last 4, both parks together did about 13-14million people.....far less than the original 18million projected. When DAK opened in 1998, Epcot and MGM attendance went down the toilet, which is why, until now, the focus has been on those 2 parks (RnRC, MS, The Millenium Celebration, 100 years of Magic, Soarin, LMA). Without the average LOS of guests increasing, the parks are competing with themselves for the same pool of guests. Where as Disney and Universal should be competing with eachother, they are not, or they are to a afr lesser degree.

WDW is on the right track with the new ticket option...the discounts kick in strong for 5-7 days, and this alone, more than anything else, could help increase the LOS of the average guest.....but tickets are only a very small piece of the overall cost of a vacation.

What is desirable from a guest perspective and from the Disney operating stand are obviously at odds. Its about the middle ground, unfortunately IMHO too much creativity and guest satisfaction is being sacrificed to improve the bottom line, while at the same time investing huge amounts of money in an attraction does not guarantee its success. Im not going to argue with the figures quoted on here so if they are to be believed Disney has spent at least $70 million on themeing above the cost of normal coasters (which obviously have there own development costs) You have to start to wonder if this is worth it, given that most people prefer to blast past the themeing and get on the ride.

Space Mountain and RnRC are basic concepts that have benefited from imaginative thinking, not every piece of building has to be a $100 million work of art.

You are right.....but lightly themed attractions get the "activist" fans all up in arms....not that they are even on the left side of the decimal point in terms of overall visitation.

I often thought that if DAK, which, IMO is the most heavily themed park, would have spent less on theming, and more on attractions, that perhaps in would not be considered a 1/2 day park by most.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Well RnRC cost about 70 million. And just so you know 10-15 million is for a great coaster. The new ROLLER SOAKER at Hershey park cost just 6 million.

Does no one ever question the amounts Disney quotes?

Help me out here but

15- 20 million for the coaster
5 million for the building, its just a warehouse after all
2-3 million for the "studio" assuming its working.
?? million for some sets

Are they paying a licence to Aerosmith?

Perhaps its the old Ministry of Defence syndrome suppliers think of a price and add 20%

 

[peter11435]

Does no one ever question the amounts Disney quotes?

Help me out here but

15- 20 million for the coaster
5 million for the building, its just a warehouse after all
2-3 million for the "studio" assuming its working.
?? million for some sets

Are they paying a licence to Aerosmith?

Perhaps its the old Ministry of Defence syndrome suppliers think of a price and add 20%

Well lets see you have the coaster, then a very large show building, you then have an entire store and area built around the g-force records building complete with the huge guitar and external track, you then have the buildings interiors, and themeing in the ally, the studio, and the ride itself, you have a ton of lighting and sound equipment and far more advanced operating systems and safety systems than your typical coaster. Sure you could say that AK could build a coaster better than Everest for a tenth of the price, and while you are correct that people would like it just the same at first. It would lead to Disney no longer being Disney. Even if the public doesn't think so I can assure you the reason they travel hundreds of miles and sometimes around the world to visit a Disney park is not because of a ride that can be seen anywhere around the world but because of the atmospheres Disney creates for its attractions.

 

[Computer Magic]

WDW is on the right track with the new ticket option...the discounts kick in strong for 5-7 days, and this alone, more than anything else, could help increase the LOS of the average guest.....but tickets are only a very small piece of the overall cost of a vacation.

I was thinging the same thing. Now add in free dinner plan and boom... longer stays? Maybe...but there is only so much time a person can take for vacation. Is how long a person stay outside of Disney control? Sure Disney can entice them, but can a person stay longer then 4 days especially if they are driving? Getting away from the office more then 7 days is not easy. So my question is cost the only factor? I would think getting vacation time plays a part.

 

[AEfx]

Point 2 WDW has added two major rides, with me so far, but I can experience them out with WDW, so while they are fun, they are not fresh. Understand?

You know, every time I hear this I just shake my head. It makes little sense.

From your other posting I am assuming you are from England. Well, we have an expression here, it's called, "It's new to me!"

We use it, for example, when buying a "new" used car. You don't say, "I just got a used car" generally, you just say you got a new car, as in "new to you".

The point is, if you haven't experienced something before, it is indeed just as fresh even if millions of others have experienced it.

The vast majority of people who visit WDW have never, will never visit Disneyland, let alone Disneyland Paris, Tokyo, or any of their sister parks.

Perhaps you are lucky enough to visit all of them regularly, but most people are not. If they are "fun" as you say, then if they are "fresh", as in don't exist anywhere else, what the heck does it matter? Unless you've seen the original, which, again, the vast majority of visitors will never do, it's a very petty argument to make that it's less fun because somewhere on the other side of the country, or world, it can be experienced.

I say bring on the clones. They will be new and "fresh" to millions of people at WDW, in spite of the tiny segment of people who would see both the clone and the original. Everyone else would just get to share a magical experience, and probably will be unaware that it exists anywhere else, much less care.

AEfx

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Even if the public doesn't think so I can assure you the reason they travel hundreds of miles and sometimes around the world to visit a Disney park is not because of a ride that can be seen anywhere around the world but because of the atmospheres Disney creates for its attractions.

I think weather may be an issue and price. DLP stands testimony to that.

The thing is Orlando does have a hell of a lot on offer, which is why I posted in the first place. It is competing for those 3.9865 days, and the right to empty your wallet in that time.

But before this heads off in a new direction (what DOES Disney represent to you) ill close safe in the knowledge that im an undervalued yearly visitor with too high an expectation and a unquenchable thirst for fun :drevil:

 

[Computer Magic]

I say bring on the clones. They will be new and "fresh" to millions of people at WDW, in spite of the tiny segment of people who would see both the clone and the original. Everyone else would just get to share a magical experience, and probably will be unaware that it exists anywhere else, much less care.

AEfx

True, I would probably only visit WDW. I don't mind the clones only because I wouldn't see them otherwise. Bring on the clone wars..

But the average person only know they are clones because Disney marketed that way. Why is Disney marketing them as clones? So that last statement "people are probably unaware they exits anywhere else" isn't exactly true since Disney is marketing as these rides were brought from other locations.

 

[peter11435]

I think weather may be an issue and price. DLP stands testimony to that.

The thing is Orlando does have a hell of a lot on offer, which is why I posted in the first place. It is competing for those 3.9865 days, and the right to empty your wallet in that time.

But before this heads off in a new direction (what DOES Disney represent to you) ill close safe in the knowledge that im an undervalued yearly visitor with too high an expectation and a unquenchable thirst for fun :drevil:

Well, the thing is that people underestimate the attendance at DLP. The fact is that the park is the most visited park in Europe and has higher attendance than Epcot. Heck the park has higher attendance than both USO and IOA combined. The problems in DLP are in dealing with the initial debt that came from building a full day fully themed park all at once. That’s why AK is the way it is. The built a half-day park but they built that park well. Now they can add to it and improve it. They saved money by limiting the number of attractions not the quality of what the park had. I don't think you would be too happy if Disney built a park with many attractions but they were all below Disney standards. Not to mention you can't add to a poorly built park to make it better as seen with DCA.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

You know, every time I hear this I just shake my head. It makes little sense.

From your other posting I am assuming you are from England. Well, we have an expression here, it's called, "It's new to me!"


AEfx

First of all how surprising to see a post on here that straight away criticises the opinion of another poster. Oh how I wish I were as perfect. Im sorry for not making sense, must be the accent.

No Im Scottish, which means Im from Scotland. It is listed in an Atlas that’s a book that lists places outside the US. A minor point but something I feel needs correcting.

We have several expressions over here, but this board is not the place to generalise. Again I know that travel is not exactly normal in the US but having the same attraction in every park is not the best way to get visitors to try something new.

Paris is nearer but the park has very few attractions that are new or improved on WDW it also costs are proportionally higher than a trip to Florida. So think of it in reverse, why should I go to Paris when Florida has it all?

 

[LoisMustDie]

OK Louis Ill KISS. Avoiding quotes so as not to confuse by adding comments that are irrelevant to what s been written, try it some time.

Eh? Is this sarcasm? Because all of my points were relevant to the quotes posted.

Universal have done nothing, well if you ignore IOA that is, a park that they have since failed to add to, hence my point about failing to capitalise.

Which would have been fine, except that you added the postscript "or have they," implying that they did, unless that was also sarcasm.

Point 2 WDW has added two major rides, with me so far, but I can experience them out with WDW, so while they are fun, they are not fresh. Understand?

Actually no. AEfx has already answered this point, so I won't reiterate here.

Point 3 was about my opinion, didn’t know it was possible to get your own opinion wrong but I guess im not as smart as you, your saying numbers mean everything, I take it your an accountant...

Unless you are a social constructivist, then yes, opinions can be wrong. It can be my opinion that 2+2=5 or that my bedroom door is made of Jell-O, but that doesn't mean it's objectively correct. I don't know why that was brought up, but anyway.

And nowhere did I imply that numbers meant everything. I said they matter when talking about how the resort is doing. It can be your opinion that building rides every year is an indication on the state of the resort, but that doesn't mean that Disney shares your views. They see attendance counts, etc. as the correct way to gauge how the resort is doing. And that's a fact. And, since it's Disney, and not you, who controls the decisions made for the resorts, I'd say that their "opinion" counts far higher. Am I going too fast?

Point 4 Universal IOA needs a new major attraction ASAP IMHO which is what i thought we were discussing, unless Ive wandered into a Disney operating board meeting.

We were never discussing this. Last I checked, we were talking about Disney building attractions for WDW every year. Have you been reading this thread at all? Your increasing amount of misrepresentations is starting to scare me.

Point 5 Sorry but my understanding of the post was thatyou implied that Disney doesn’t have to act like other parks cause they are the market leader...

And you completely misunderstood. Nowhere did I mention that Disney should not be innovative, nor was it even implied. I was talking about the frequency of opening attractions at each park. And I never said this was because Disney was a market leader, but because they are a tourist, rather than local, destination.

I was trying to raise the point that you stay in front by being imaginative and delivering what your customers want. Closed up buildings not being the top of the list.

I never thought that somoene could both grossly misrepresent my point and prove my point at the same time, but congrats! You seemed to have pulled it off here:

1. Since your presumption of what I said was completely off, the aforementioned counterpoints are based on a category mistake, hence your point about being "imaginative" has nothing to do with what I said. But I agree that Disney should be imaginative...I never implied that they shouldn't.
2. Yes, you stay in front by delivering what your customers want. And, since the majority of WDW's visitors (and the group they are targeting) are families that visit every 3-5 years, what do they want? New attractions every 3-5 years! Which is exactly what I said in the first place.

Point 6 Why is my logic difficult to fathom? Im staying at the resort but Im going to other parks to do things I have never done or haven’t tried for years. Where’s the logic mix up there?

Because the "logic" had nothing to do with this...it was exactly why you were "unhappy" with Disney, since you complained about Disney not building any attractions, and then complain about the two major attractions that they DO build this year.

I trust this is now to your satisfaction.

Nope. Now it's even worse. I must say though, you have an uncanny ability of putting words in my mouth, making assumptions on things I never said, and picking points completely out of thin air.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Eh? Is this sarcasm? Because all of my points were relevant to the quotes posted.

Yes it was and no they weren't

Which would have been fine, except that you added the postscript "or have they," implying that they did, unless that was also sarcasm.

Oh dear you are struggling with that one.

Actually no. AEfx has already answered this point, so I won't reiterate here.

Youve got me nailed there how can i argue the” new to me” argument unless I was talking about me, which I was, wasn’t I and therefore it isn’t, is it not?

Unless you are a social constructivist, then yes, opinions can be wrong. It can be my opinion that 2+2=5 or that my bedroom door is made of Jell-O, but that doesn't mean it's objectively correct. I don't know why that was brought up, but anyway.

Opinion, my opinion is that there is several dobbers on this board, now it may be impossible to prove one way or the other that I am wrong, but it doesn’t stop it being my opinion. As with what was originally posted. But you knew that.

And nowhere did I imply that numbers meant everything. I said they matter when talking about how the resort is doing. It can be your opinion that building rides every year is an indication on the state of the resort, but that doesn't mean that Disney shares your views. They see attendance counts, etc. as the correct way to gauge how the resort is doing. And that's a fact. And, since it's Disney, and not you, who controls the decisions made for the resorts, I'd say that their "opinion" counts far higher. Am I going too fast?

We were never discussing this. Last I checked, we were talking about Disney building attractions for WDW every year. Have you been reading this thread at all? Your increasing amount of misrepresentations is starting to scare me.

We weren’t discussing Universal your correct however I used Universal as an example of changing competition, your post indicated that you needed some clarification in why I had formed said opinion of Universal, which I gave. Now having had your error pointed out you have tried to change tack. Sorry if that scares you. I forget that young people use the board.

And you completely misunderstood. Nowhere did I mention that Disney should not be innovative, nor was it even implied. I was talking about the frequency of opening attractions at each park. And I never said this was because Disney was a market leader, but because they are a tourist, rather than local, destination.

I misunderstood; sorry it must be your accent as no doubt your misunderstandings are down to mine and not with any attempt at axe grinding. And again i was posting my opinion as an international tourist.

I never thought that somoene could both grossly misrepresent my point and prove my point at the same time, but congrats! You seemed to have pulled it off here:

1. Since your presumption of what I said was completely off, the aforementioned counterpoints are based on a category mistake, hence your point about being "imaginative" has nothing to do with what I said. But I agree that Disney should be imaginative...I never implied that they shouldn't.
2. Yes, you stay in front by delivering what your customers want. And, since the majority of WDW's visitors (and the group they are targeting) are families that visit every 3-5 years, what do they want? New attractions every 3-5 years! Which is exactly what I said in the first place.

Ive looked back at the original posts, and me if it doesn’t say that a new attraction should be announced at EE s opening and who posted it you. Now somewhere between there and my original post that said Id like a new attraction every year or two you seem to have found a whole chasm of things Im wrong about and for you to get worked up about and generally pontificate over. However and again it’s a reminder of my opinion, 4 parks with a ride every year or two does mean that something new should be opening every year in WDW. Or are you now saying that it could be up to nine years before a park qualifies for a new attraction.

Because the "logic" had nothing to do with this...it was exactly why you were "unhappy" with Disney, since you complained about Disney not building any attractions, and then complain about the two major attractions that they DO build this year.

Why is that so shocking, plenty of posts on here comment on new attractions being pants and the same posters moan that the Studios and AK are half day parks. Is it the criticism or the fact that the criticism stems from me?

Nope. Now it's even worse. I must say though, you have an uncanny ability of putting words in my mouth, making assumptions on things I never said, and picking points completely out of thin air.

Im sorry I should have known better than get into a discussion with such an expert on all things Disney, I failed to realise that your posts and opinions were beyond contestation. I have well and truly learned my lesson.

And before you ask yes it is in a big heavy dose.