WSJ: Even Disney Is Worried About The High Cost Of A Disney Vacation (gift link)

[TheMaxRebo]

My family fits that. While we could afford to go by staying off site, eating off site and no LLs, it wouldn't be that enjoyable. For us, if we can't get get similar to what we had in past visits due to cost we opt for something else.

And I definitely know many other like that - they could still "Do Disney" but not like they have in the past so rather not go or at least take a break

We will still go and make some adjustments - though we never really cared where we stay and often stay off property anyway and are adapting just to having older kids anyway/changing how we want to go anyway

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

I feel like the inference in my post made it clear they weren’t doing any of that either lol

Oh, I wasn't trying to characterize the people you know, mostly just some of the people I knew.

Let me also put it this way, I went to WDW some as a small child, but my parents' vacation style was ultra-frugal.

We slept in the car part of the time, and ate food that my mom made before we left. As in, she made pasta, froze it, put it in a cooler for days, and that was our dinner. Mmmm!

I also drank LOTS of unfiltered Florida tap water. If I was ever allowed to drink anything else, it was 4 ounces of 1970's canned orange juice.


If anyone else remembers how nasty that stuff was....well one year we were happy to have a can of powdered Tang!

 

[MrPromey]

No. In that very post, I gave the example of DCL as something that has a similar level of experiential quality and broad appeal that doesn't potentially diminish perception. And I also said subsequently that if Universal wants to go this route, they can; it's just not the direction that I would personally go, and I hope it doesn't affect what they think they can get away with at their destination parks.

An all inclusive Disney cruise at a destination port and a lower priced themed regional park targeting families with young children in short driving distance aren't similar at all.

The park Universal is building is not intended to have the "broad appeal" you seem to want it to.

Everyone arguing here seems to be arguing that this isn't going to be the park they think it should be rather than saying it will fail at what Universal expects it to be.

The overwhelming majority of the people in this forum are not who this is for which, I think, is why it doesn't make sense to so many, here.

Who knows? Maybe trying to appeal in a profitable way to a market segment they're not currently attracting won't work out.

Maybe Disney slowly pricing out and alienating their core audience over time will actually prove to be the smart move that doesn't hurt their brand while Universal attempting to make money from an audience they know they may never see in Orlando is dumb.

I guess time will prove one of us right.

Feel free to rub the pie in my face if I'm wrong - I'll be happy to admit to it.

 

[wdisney9000]

"Any survey, article, study or opinion that is not from our PR team is wrong"

- Disney Spokesperson

As the youth proclaim..."say less"

 

[lazyboy97o]

I disagree. It's only people here that have that view. The average person don't look at like that. In their mind it's a Universal property that is affordable and in their area. Most Americans don't travel to visit parks other than the ones in their area.

You just described the big risk. If people think Universal Kids or even Horror Unleashed is the Universal experience they may never consider the very different experience offered as a full vacation at Universal Orlando Resort.

Merlin actually had this problem. They had to rebrand their mall-based FECs from Legoland Discovery Center to Lego Discovery Center. There was too much confusion and in the wrong direction. People didn’t think that locally they were getting a smaller slice of the larger Legoland experience, but that the actual parks were no different, and thus not worth the travel and higher price, than the FEC in their local mall.

 

[MisterPenguin]

View attachment 843633

We get it. You trust hushed whispers that feed into your emotions and previously held beliefs that have zero evidence, and strain credulity that such conspiracies can be kept secret despite relying on hundreds of people to never blow the whistle.

As opposed to journalists who have to live with journalistic standards because they get fired from actual news organizations if they don't. They're just blindly passing on rumors with no concern that that can come back and bite them on the backside.

 

[MrPromey]

Those comments were about Epic because you swerved over to it and now you’re back to the Kids park.

Frankly, both parks would probably best be served with a tepid response. They’re a bit too extreme in opposite directions.

Epic Universe is too expensive for what is being delivered. Too much demand likely means more of the things this article is about, namely higher prices and more monetization of existing offerings. Kids park is the opposite, too cheap and would further encourage being cheap across the board. The being cheap thing isn’t limited to the one park, they also want Universal Studios United Kingdom to be rather cheap.

In that context, I get you.

I went to Epic because of your "which extends beyond the Kids Park" comment. That was the only thing that jumped immediately to mind when I was trying to figure out what you were talking about.

I think it's fine to build something relatively cheap that's local for a segment that can only afford cheap.

It can still be clean, have good customer service and deliver something that's better than a carnival-style amusement park. I think Legoland/Peppa has proven that.

If Disney were to put an area like Toy Story Land in a small regional park, I'd feel very different about it than I do where it is in Hollywood Studios.

I don't really know anything about what's going on in the UK, though.

Did they announce what they're doing out there like it's meant to compete with DLP? Is it another kids park? Just Harry Potter or overwhelmingly Potter with some other random IP on the side?

They have the haunted attraction going up in LV, too. Do we all expect that to be horrible because it's small-scale and not for a broad audience or are people more willing to wait-and-see since that smaller audience has more overlap with the people in this discussion and we all know they know how to do a haunted house? (this last part isn't really directed squarely at you).

 

[Sorcerer Mickey]

Not even sure they need to reduce prices - Disney was always expensive

But in the past people felt like they got more for their money and the higher cost was more acceptable.

Even if you stayed in a value hotel, which often was less than $100/night you got access to the same extended hours as other, got included magical express, got free Magic bands (that arrived in the mail and built excitement for your trip?).

I have no issue with up charges - always have been there to some extent - but people need to feel like they are getting proper return for the base entry cost and doesn't feel like it is there compared to the past

It feels like the product you're buying for the base entry cost is to be continuously poked and prodded into spending as much money as you can in one day. Every inch of the parks is designed to separate you from your cash. Especially if you have kids, who are either experiencing a meltdown emotionally or literally in the Florida sun, so you have a knee-jerk reaction to just spending the money and not thinking much of it.

 

[MrPromey]

He's 17.

Thank you for pointing that out.

I'd have continued to waste my time, otherwise.

 

[James Alucobond]

An all inclusive Disney cruise at a destination port and a lower priced themed regional park targeting families with young children in short driving distance aren't similar at all.

I never said they were similar. What I said was that, strategically, I feel it makes more sense for a themed entertainment company to be a guarantor of a certain level of quality. So, when you go to a Disney park, sail on a Disney cruise, or visit a Disney resort, they're fundamentally different experiences, but they all meet the Disney standard (complaints of the erosion of that notwithstanding). With Universal's announced children's park, they seem to instead be cashing in on established goodwill with their brand to buoy the reputation of a park that would otherwise be completely unremarkable in the regional space.

Feel free to rub the pie in my face if I'm wrong - I'll be happy to admit to it.

I don't have a desire to be vindicated about anything. I simply hope that, if successful, it doesn't impact development trends at the premier parks for Universal or Disney.

 

[UNCgolf]

It is basic brand perception. If you are known for quality and want to continue being known for quality, you don't slap your label on things that don't meet that standard or haven't been carefully vetted (in the case of a partnership or acquisition). If people have a bad experience with one of your products or come to a certain conclusion about the kinds of things you offer based on their limited initial interactions, they will naturally think other things that you do fall under that same quality, service, or experience umbrella. There's a reason companies frequently create subsidiaries for the sole purpose of obfuscating the connection between offerings that don't fit within the desired brand identity of the parent company.

It's the whole reason Touchstone Pictures existed.

That one went both ways, because they didn't want adult content associated with the Disney brand, and they also didn't want people to skip movies aimed at adults because of an assumption it was for kids due to the Disney brand.

 

[HoustonHorn]

I hope everyone understands how much of a scam this statement is:
"We haven’t increased the lowest-priced ticket to Disneyland since 2019"

It's along the same lines as:

"People who switched saved an average of $XXX." Of course, because if they wouldn't save money, they wouldn't switch!

or

"You could save up to 15% or more." That sentence means - literally - nothing, as it covers the gamut from saving nothing to saving 15% or saving more.

 

[MrPromey]

You just described the big risk. If people think Universal Kids or even Horror Unleashed is the Universal experience they may never consider the very different experience offered as a full vacation at Universal Orlando Resort.

Merlin actually had this problem. They had to rebrand their mall-based FECs from Legoland Discovery Center to Lego Discovery Center. There was too much confusion and in the wrong direction. People didn’t think that locally they were getting a smaller slice of the larger Legoland experience, but that the actual parks were no different, and thus not worth the travel and higher price, than the FEC in their local mall.

It's a risk if they're not accounting for it.

Your Merlin example is someone getting it wrong and for Universal to get it wrong, we'd have to assume their management hasn't been paying attention and learned from the public failings of other .

From the sounds of the article at the heart of this thread, it seems like shockingly, Disney leadership has been actively dodging reality to land them in the situation they're in so it's understandable to think Universal management might be similarly tone deaf in their own way.

 

[MrPromey]

I never said they were similar. What I said was that, strategically, I feel it makes more sense for a themed entertainment company to be a guarantor of a certain level of quality. So, when you go to a Disney park, sail on a Disney cruise, or visit a Disney resort, they're fundamentally different experiences, but they all meet the Disney standard (complaints of the erosion of that notwithstanding). With Universal's announced children's park, they seem to instead be cashing in on established goodwill with their brand to buoy the reputation of a park that would otherwise be completely unremarkable in the regional space.


I don't have a desire to be vindicated about anything. I simply hope that, if successful, it doesn't impact development trends at the premier parks for Universal or Disney.

You understand the audience for a Disney cruise (vs. any other cruise line out there) has an immense overlap for WDW, right?

So much so they have booking options that include both for a single trip with transportation between the resort and Port Canaveral for those taking cruises out of Florida.

Like a red/blue venn diagram would be mostly purple.

I'm assuming you understand that.

To some degree, the cruise line is competing for the same entertainment dollars the resort is when people choose one or the other.

This isn't intended to compete with other Universal properties.

Unlike the cruise line, it's meant to attract an audience who isn't likely to pick this instead of a week trip flying over to Orlando.

It's not clear, from anything you've been saying that you understand the difference with that.

Do you?

 

[James Alucobond]

You understand the audience for a Disney cruise (vs. any other cruise line out there) has an immense overlap for WDW, right?

So much so they have booking options that include both for a single trip with transportation between the resort and Port Canaveral for those taking cruises out of Florida.

Like a red/blue venn diagram would be mostly purple.

I'm assuming you understand that.

To some degree, the cruise line is competing for the same entertainment dollars the resort is when people choose one or the other.

This isn't intended to compete with other Universal properties.

Unlike the cruise line, it's meant to attract an audience who isn't likely to pick this instead of a week trip flying over to Orlando.

It's not clear, from anything you've been saying that you understand the difference with that.

Do you?

Again, you're going on and on about something that is beside the point. I do indeed understand that there is more audience overlap with DCL and WDW than there presumably would be with Universal Orlando and Universal Kids. What I am saying is that they are invoking the Universal name and brand equity in such a way that could be detrimental. Even if the audiences are mostly separate (at least by age segregation), using the name still signals something to visitors. If Universal Kids is first contact, won't that color perceptions of Universal in general and possibly impact willingness to engage with the brand in the future upon aging out? And if, assuming the reverse, Universal Orlando is instead first contact, don't you suppose visitors will enter Universal Kids with certain expectations and assumptions? Additionally, I can't imagine there's no desire whatsoever to "graduate" visitors with means to more expensive Universal experiences as they get older.

 

[Tha Realest]

I will never understand why people like Josh D'amaro. The park experience has done nothing but regress under his watch.

never underestimate the number of people that get sucked in by performative empathy.

 

[lazyboy97o]

They have the haunted attraction going up in LV, too. Do we all expect that to be horrible because it's small-scale and not for a broad audience or are people more willing to wait-and-see since that smaller audience has more overlap with the people in this discussion? (this last part isn't really directed squarely at you).

Generally speaking, I do think it would be foolish to discount the demographic alignment.

Both Horror Unleashed and Universal Kids are about doing things that are smaller and cheaper. There is a difference between the direction of how the content is being handled. Part of the problem with controlling and reducing costs is that they often arise for legitimate reasons and they’re directed towards a certain scale of output. Feature Animation doesn’t really do television because that’s not how they’re budgeted and organized. Even in a golden age of television where the stigma of working in it is gone, it’s still generally smaller, faster productions. There were attempts to make streaming more prestige by having the movie studios do television production and it really hasn’t penciled out.

Universal Kids is the blockbuster movie team trying to do a modest television series. Its direction is more value engineered from the destination parks. Horror Unleashed though is more the television team getting to a big budget special. It’s taking the cheap and disposable thing and pleasing it up. Horror Nights is handled by the local Entertainment teams not Creative and they’ve retained control of the houses in Horror Unleashed.

The pitfall that Horror Unleashed really faces is the ongoing operating costs. It does risk becoming like the permanent house that was at Universal Studios Hollywood, often devoid of the scare actors. The Halloween season has been extended but it’s definitely a question as to whether there will be enough interest in doing a haunt at Christmas to maintain Universal’s established level of house operation.

And I do think this is relevant to Disney. Universal has been speed running a lot of the issues that plague Disney. They’re not the same company that could deliver Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey for less than The Little Mermaid. They couldn’t do Transformers in 13 months. Bob Gurr left Disney decades ago because he thought there was too much bureaucracy and too many meetings. There are larger market and organizational forces at play within Disney, the fixed amusement business and even the tourism business in general.

 

[Agent H]

Thank you for pointing that out.

I'd have continued to waste my time, otherwise.

17 and 1/2 and what does my age have to do with anything?

 

[WorldExplorer]

I will never understand why people like Josh D'amaro. The park experience has done nothing but regress under his watch.

He's good looking for his age.

That's seriously it.

 

[Agent H]

He's good looking for his age.

That's seriously it.

I don’t know I think he’s pretty good looking he’s certainly better than chapak