Will Universal benefit from Disney cutbacks?

[stlrod]

I am curious as to whether others believe Universal may benefit from the Disney cutbacks. We had planned to go with in-laws to both resorts for 3 nights each and just cancelled the WDW part and substituted Disney's Vero Beach. Admittedly, the cancellation of early entry played a role in our decision particularly when we thought about how we would get priority entrance all day long at Universal.

[Dragon0525]

I think they will-we're now going to stay at Portofino Bay Hotel for 3 nights and go to Universal and SeaWorld.

[Robinrs]

I believe they already have. Being on the Orlando Hotels and Attractions Board I see lots of people making the move out of the Disney scene due to the changes and cutbacks.

I don't believe the diehard Disney fan will let the elimination of E nights and EE change their love for all things Disney but there are some that are really angry. Hopefully Universal will keep their perks so that people will not abandon them also.

In the meantime, they lost ME. I had reservations at the Dolphin which I cancelled due to the changes. I know I'm not the only one. The plusses to staying onsite sort of lost it's appeal.

[kellymonaghan]

I think what will really benefit Universal is its consistently high standards of themeing and ride design.

I'm not alone in thinking that IOA has set new standards of excellence in both categories. As the word gets out, through this board and other ways, more people come to Universal, more people fall in love with the place, and more people decide that they'll come back again and again and again.

[stlrod]

I have to admit that although I am already a huge fan of the Universal resort, I was so impressed by the fact that they delivered tickets in less than 24 hours from when I ordered them and gave me a free day that I am even more enamoured.

[IOATech]

While Disney continues to "cut back", you will soon see many positive improvements in the look and feel of our parks and CityWalk, and in guest relations. Universal is coming alive right now.

[All Aboard]

No doubt my post will surely ruffle feathers, but...

Aren't IOA & USF closing at 5pm & 6pm right now? Aren't many attractions operating on late open/early close schedules? Aren't restaurants like Thunder Falls shuttered? Hasn't the character meal been eliminated? Is there any show going on in the big theater in Toon Lagoon?

I think there is a little "glass house" syndrome going on here.

[Robinrs]

gcurling:

The attractions that have opened and closed are pretty much what happens regularly.

The parks close earlier in the fall months every year. I remember the parks closing at 6pm on my trip in October 2000.

The character meal at Confisco's was gone before my trip in May.

Sure, everyone had a downtime after September 11th, but USF did not reneg on their onsite perks as Disney did. I know if I had paid for onsite conveniences, I would expect to get it. A closure of a ride or a restaurant would not affect my choice.

I knew the minute that the comparison of the two entities came up there would be a debate. I, personally, love both parks. The question was whether we THINK that Universal will benefit from Disney's cutbacks. In my world they did.

[Bob O]

I think Universal could benefit from disneys problems. But to do so they need to build new attractions/shows while disney is cutting back and stop their own cutbacks and really advertise the benefits of fotl for onsite guests. It may cost money upfront but could pay bakc big time in the future by giving their guests a better experience.

[webray]

Universal has been benefiting since they opened their resorts and started offering all the wonderful perks. They have a 1st class resort area...everyone should go and enjoy it. We live here, and we stay at the Portofino a few times a year. It is wonderful. We love City Walk and both parks...You can't beat the excellent service and cleanliness!

[raidermatt]

If all the things that Gcurling said are true, then Disney's cutbacks still leave it ahead of Universal. 5:00? Its one thing for the least attendend of 4 parks (AK) to close at 5:00, but Universal only has two... We are going to WDW in May/June for two weeks, and are considering a day or two at Universal. I have nothing against the place. I've never been, but the planning video looks pretty good. However, there is definitely some double-standards being applied. If we were going now, the fact that Universal closes at 5:00 or 6:00 would keep us from going. If we are going to bother to rent a car, we will want later hours.

Which brings me to my next point... Disney is doing what you'd expect the entrenched leader of the industry to do. They are cutting costs and trying to weather the storm. They are still working on some new attractions, (Mission Space, ToT at DCA, Dinoland), which will help when the economy picks up. The question is, where does Universal see itself? Are they the upstart trying to steal customers away from Disney, or is it more of a complimentary relationship, where Universal is just increasing overall tourism to Orlando, and filling a slightly different niche?

From the comments pro-Universal people make on these boards, I assumed it was the former, a highly competitive relationship. But after watching the planning video, and considering the cutbacks Universal has made, I really think its the latter, more of a complimentary relationship. In the video, Universal mentions their close proximity to WDW. At several points, they bill themselves as a place to spend 2-3 days. While they would like to take a few customers away from WDW, and they want people to go to CityWalk instead of DD, Universal realizes that if WDW is hurting attendance-wise, its bad for Universal too. Sure, there are some who go to Orlando for 3-5 days, and who will spend that whole time at Universal, and maybe Sea World. But, as the Universal video points out, most people come for at least a week. There just aren't that many people that will take a weeks vacations just to see the other things in Orlando. Not saying there aren't any, but not many compared to the number who will come for a week of WDW.

Universal NEEDS a healthy WDW right now. That could change, if Universal continues expanding, but for right now, they can only steal a day or two here and there from most Disney customers, and they know it. So they aren't going full out after Disney. They've offered some discounts, but with WDW hurting, this could be their chance to attack. Discounts, later hours, etc, would be the way to go. But the fact is, Universal can't turn the slumping tourism around by itself, and it knows that attacking will be costly (after all, there's a reason both have cutback).

[stlrod]

I agree with many of raidermatt's comments about Universal's dependency on Disney. But both right now are going to be fighting for local tourism. ANd don't get me wrong, I'm pro-Univeral (love Spiderman) pro-Disney (a DVC owner) and pro-Seaworld (from St. Louis home of AB). My guess is that Universal will attract visitors who would have spent money at WDW due to the cutbacks and the costs. raidermatt, I'm not sure where Livermore is but Uinversal kicked Disney's butt in LA last summer. While Disney was charging full price for what many considered half a theme park (Disaster California Adventure--I actually shouldn't say that--I happen to like the park very much and have taken my family twice this year), Universal let kids in free. Despite cutbacks at Universal Orlando, they seem to be fighting a lot harder to get people to come. Disney hasn't done anything about park passes and they need to if they want people to come. We are in a recession and people are not going to spend $200 for admission to a theme park everyday when they are also paying high prices for hotels and food. My guess is that after the holidays, it's going to be kids free at Universal plus cheap hotels. If Disney doesn't respond in kind, it's going to lose that weekend business they are both going to need. I'm not wanting either to succeed or die, they do compliment each other. I am, howver, bothered by the seeming lack of strategic plan on Disney's part to deal with the drop in tourism and the recession.

[Earl]

Well, I have to put my two cents worth in. That relationship between Disney and Universal is changing. While a healthy Disney typically spins off onto all of the other parks, Universal is not as dependent on their health as one might think.

In past years, there was no doubt that most trips to Universal were spinoffs of trips to Disney. Since IOA, Citywalk and the hotels have been built, the focus at Universal has been to get identified as a destination resort. Someplace to come and spend your vacation time, without serious regard for who is down the street. They want to stand on their own two feet, so to speak.
It's actually quite amazing of the number of people that arrive in Central Florida who stay in offsite hotels that do not decide where they are going until after they get here.

I have worked in the industry for many years, most of them at Disney. What I find interesting is what seems to be happening in the recovery process and how the companies have been able to react. Disney has a huge infrastructure, they always have and that's the way they do business. There's nothing wrong with that, but it can be combersome in some situations. Universal has always run a leaner machine. They are also very focused on the need to become a stand alone destination on order to be successful. Universal Orlando has a new president. He and the company clealry know where they want the resort to be.

Now here's where I think the big difference in reaction is. I'm sure that there are those who will disagree, but here's my opinion from being there. First you have to make the decision to make a change or adjustment. The way I see it is that when WDW management passes down a change, the employees make the change because they were told to do it. At Universal, it's more like the employees want to do it. Not that every employee or guest agree with the all of the changes that either company makes. As IOATech said in an earlier post, Universal is coming alive. Their hearts are in it. That doens't mean that you are going to see any new attractions right now (for the sake of this post, let this point lie), what it does mean is there is an incredible focus on seizing every opportunity to make the guest experience the very best. They want people to come back because they enjoyed their trip. They want them to tell their friends to come too. Keep in mind, it's still a business, so you might not see everything you want to.

Both companies have had cutbacks, to staffing and to the porduct presented to guests. Some of it due the reaction of Sept. 11th, and some to to the traditional slowdown that occurs at this time of the year. Most of the reductions involve closed resturants and merchandise locations. It creates more of an inconvience by having to go to another location. As business returns, these locations will re-open.

What I have been seeing is that it appears that Universal is grabbing a bigger piece of the recovery pie than WDW. It's a big topic of discussion locally. Universal being smaller and more flexible seems to be reaping the bigger gains. Especially in the local and regional traffic. It may be as simple as a perception that is easier to get around because it's all in one place, opposed to the vastness of WDW. Now there's nothing wrong with the vastness, it's just different. Some folks enjoy the close proximity of the two parks, Citywalk, theater and the hotels.

Watch for new things, and new attitudes coming to Universal. The climate is an opportunity for them to show how things can be done. There are some exciting new projects being discussed for the near future. There will always be a relationship between the parks in Orlando, but it's starting to change. :)

[stlrod]

Earl, Thank you for sharing your insightfulness. I have to admit that one consideration we had in cancelling the WDW part of our trip with our in-laws was due to the size or vastness of the WDW resort. I have had the pleasure of visiting Anaheim twice this year and I was incredibly impressed by how much improvement there had been in Anaheim and how comfortable the Disneyland Resort was (walking to both theme parks and through Downtown Disney was a more intimate and relaxing experience than running all over WDW to be the frist one on a ride in the morning. I thought of how enjoyable and how easilythat could be experience at US rather than WDW. I think many visitors will be looking for that intimace, particularly if the "magic" down the street is lacking.

[Bob O]

I hope Universal takes advantage of disneys problems to better thier product. I love Universal and the fact it isnt disney, a more adult type place with more thrilling rides. And judging from my kids reactions which is a very small sample they now perfer Universal over disney, escpeically with the tie-ins from more recent movies like Twister and i think that bodes well for their future as alot of the younger generation isnt as tied to disney as some grownups might be. I think Universal will only get better as time goes by and i hope they keep fotl in some form as that is the best theme park perk ever!!!!!

[JessicaR]

Thanks, Earl. I feel that was a very well thought out post. I so agree with IOATech when he says "Universal is comming alive".

As far as the original question goes...For my family yes. However Universal benefits over Disney for our bucks before any cutbacks were even implemented. The perks and discounts we have experienced at Universal are a factor in deciding where we will spend our time in Orlando. Not to mention we love Universal's total vacation experience. In saying that I am not implying we dont like what Disney has to offer, but it would be nice if they threw us a bone once in a while and inticed us with some savings and perks as well. When Disney can offer some discounted passes and a fair price for a deluxe resort stay I may consider staying on-site there again. It would be nice to see them offer a deluxe for $100 a night. I dont understand why they would rather shut a hotel without first discounting the rooms. Isnt a reduced rate room better than an empty one?

BobO....I think you hit the nail on the head. I was raised on Disney my kids werent they have experienced both and they prefer Universal/IOA. I think we also cant discount the fact that Universal has some great perks that allow us to experience the rides/attractions quicker providing us a much more pleasant day.

Okay this is all just my experience, opinion and how it affects me. I do think there are plenty of people to make happy and plenty of parks to do the job. I love that I have all these choices available.

[raidermatt]

Earl- Thank you for the info. Its always good to get info from those "in the know"...

Its funny how you mentioned the vastness of WDW as a negative. I'm sure its viewed by some that way, but to many, its a positve. Most of us live in cities or suburbs where the is little open space. I enjoy the way WDW is spreadout, and everything is not crowded into a small space. This is something that many mention as an advantage WDW has over DLResort.

That's not to say everyone feels that way, just that there are many who do, which is just one of the reasons for WDW's success.

Universal is still not targeting all of the same markets as WDW. There is some overlap, but not as much as one might think. We are trying to decide how much time to spend at Universal during our two-week trip to WDW in May/June. My son is 3 1/2, and it appears there is just no comparison between what Universal and WDW have to offer him. So we may spend a day or two at Universal, but that's it. And if all goes well, our family will include younger children for quite a few years to come, meaning they will be "raised on Disney".

Now, once they get older, they will probably be more attracted to Universal. But I don't see this as a big problem for Disney. Its a concern I think they want to address, but not a new issue for them. When I was a teenager, I still loved DL, but I had a blast at places like Six Flags. But now that I have a young son, only Disney meets that need.

I'm not saying Universal will not succeed and continue to grow, because I honestly think they will. But Disney has built parks that not only appeal to young children, but to their parents. They allow families to stay together, while neither parent nor child feels they are being "dragged" along. Disney does need to stay focused, and remember what made them the theme park juggernaut that they are, but remember that last year and early this year WDW was seeing record crowds. This despite the growth of Universal.

[raidermatt]

JessiceR- You asked why Disney is not aggressively discounting to avoid empty rooms. The answer is related to their overall strategy, and there are several reasons why discounting does not fit in with their strategy.

1- If they start selling rooms for $100 a night now, who will pay the regular price in the future, when occupancies are up again? Yes, they will fill more rooms now, but they would be shooting themselves in the foot long term.

2- Discounted rooms mean more guests are at the resort, but the revenue per guest is down. This means the cost per guest must also drop, or profit margins will fall (the amount of profit per guest will fall). Since profits can only be sacrificed up to a certain point, and Disney is really already at that point overall, the only other option is to decrease the cost Disney spends on each guest. This means more cutbacks than have already taken place.

3- Disney sees themselves as the "highend" in their industry, and rightfully so. In order to provide what they have to to keep this reputation, they cannot sacrfice price. They are the Sak's, not WalMart. That's not to say that Universal is the WalMart, just an explanation why Disney hesitates to discount.

All of that doesn't mean Disney won't begin dicounting more. We are only about 8 months into this recession, so its not likely we will be pulling out until Summer or Fall at best. If attendance continues to lag, you will see some disounts from Disney, but they will still be charging more than their competitors.

[Bob O]

Raidermatt- A possible problem for disney is that young people like some of my kids dont have the emotional attachment to disnsey that alot of adults now have and as they grow up to be parents they may very well feel more home at a Universal or Paramount pakr that feature nick characters and not disney as channels like Nick or catroon Channel are as popular or more popular then the disney channel. My kids like disney but some enjoy Universal more and that wont stop as they get older and disney needs to do more to get the teenage set because it wont be long till they are adults and wont have the same allegiance to disney some of us do. And with Universal using popular movies to draw in teenagers it will only help them.

[JessicaR]

raidermatt,

I would like to comment on your views.

"1- If they start selling rooms for $100 a night now, who will pay the regular price in the future, when occupancies are up again? Yes, they will fill more rooms now, but they would be shooting themselves in the foot long term. "

It's called supply and demand and we all experience it on a daily basis. When occupancies are up the prices shall be as well. Will they be shooting themselves in the long run? No, I dont think so. Personally I think they are shooting themselves now.

"2- Discounted rooms mean more guests are at the resort, but the revenue per guest is down. This means the cost per guest must also drop, or profit margins will fall (the amount of profit per guest will fall). Since profits can only be sacrificed up to a certain point, and Disney is really already at that point overall, the only other option is to decrease the cost Disney spends on each guest. This means more cutbacks than have already taken place."

What about the profits they are losing on food,merchandise,park admissions? The revenue is down on the room only. If the people dont come there is no revenue. Wouldnt the money lost on discounted rooms be insignificant compared to revenue lost overall? I am unclear on how you feel that Disney isnt already spending less per guest with their cutbacks. Layoffs, less hours closed hotels all equal less money spent per guest to me.

"3- Disney sees themselves as the "highend" in their industry, and rightfully so. In order to provide what they have to to keep this reputation, they cannot sacrfice price. They are the Sak's, not WalMart. That's not to say that Universal is the WalMart, just an explanation why Disney hesitates to discount".

I agree but I also believe Universal feels the same way.They easily prove this with their high technology. Again not saying one park is better but lets try and remember they both offer different things to different people. Actually with the attitude in order to keep what they have they cant discount prices is exactly what could put them under. There are many options and tools they can make use of to discount their product while still maintaining a high level of standard. Even Sac's has to run sales to stay competitive.

Just to add to the kids topic:
I recently read your other post and will also add my thoughts there to what I think your 3 year old will really enjoy on your visit, but I did want to ask have you even been to Universal/IOA?
I have a 4 year old and an 8 year old. I am unsure what thrills your 3 year old but although there is a slight Disney emphasis (due to me) TV targets Barney and Nick and all these characters are found at Universal/IOA. Thats a main reason my kids feel an attraction and have an affinity towards Universal more so than Disney. I really do wish the Disney channel would base more shows and programs around the characters we see at the parks instead of movies that my kids just arent interested in.

[IOATech]

Another view that should be considered is that sometimes the usual rules and protocols of business just simply don't apply, or don't work in theme parks. Cutbacks, cost-saving measures meant to give back to the bottom line sometimes backfire and have the opposite effect. A recent newspaper article pointed out the negative results of cutbacks at WDW. The quality of the properties has begun to suffer. When the climate turns bad the employees who are lucky enough to remain employees become nervous, and are given limited resources to perform with. This creates an environment which can quickly spill over the back-of-house areas and infect the guest experience. This results in negative feedback, bad word-of-mouth advertising and decreased head counts. Cutbacks hurt the theme parks. Universal made the decision to be proactive and reverse this process at considerable risk. 8 days later, and on a somewhat smaller scale for the business ratio, Disney made a similar announcement by releasing plans to hire additional workers- some seasonal, some regular. Not even close, though to the number of employees who were walked out of the gate. It is likely Universal will hire this fiscal year the balance of vacant positions.

And just to stir up the pot a little- Disney owns most of their hotels and resorts. Fluctuations in occupancy directly impact their profit. Universal resorts are owned by another operator who bears much of the business in that respect. This is the kind of relationship Disney executives purportively are inclined to transition to in the future.

The company's number one goal is provide a quality primary entertainment destination. The Walmart comparison more accurately applies to someone else (no offense taken- I kind of like Walmart).

[larworth]

IOATech

Curious about your comment concerning Disney and hotel ownership. Someone on another board speculated that Disney would sell off most of their moderates to outside vendors. People were quick to say this was not true. Can you add any more to what you have heard?

Seems that hotel ownership is the two-edged sword. When times are good you get an extra profit boost, when times are bad it is an added drag. I would still bet (whether Disney or Universal) that on-site properties will continue to enjoy higher occupancy rates as long as they are not overbuilt. Therefore, if I had enough critical mass to make hotel management practical I would think owning is still the best option longerterm.

It is possible that even with 3 hotels this is not enough critical mass to make this a good choice for Universal?

[raidermatt]

JessicaR- We all expect seasonal variances, even day of the week variances. But discounting has impacts other than its immediate impact on the bottom line. You maybe the exception, but once most people have been able to purchase a luxury item at a bargain price, they aren't likely to pay the high price again. They expect to pay more in peak seasons, or on weekends, but they expect to pay the same next December that they paid this December.

Yes, there are profits from merchandise and food to consider, but the profits from these things do not go up in proportion to the revenue lost on a room. If you save a $100 on a room, you might spend that $100 on other things, but most won't. Even if you do, the actual profits are less than $100. The $100 off the room comes off the top and therefore is pure profit.

Yes, cutbacks result in less total money spent, but if there are also fewer guests. The huge fixed costs of running a theme park make it impossible to keep the ratio the same in bad times, but by keeping prices relatively stable, and reducing costs as much as possible, the ratio can be kept as close as possible to the optimum. Universal is not any different. Even with their discounts, attendance is suffering, so why don't they discount more? (rhetorcal question)

I can only say my son likes Bear in the Big Blue House and House of Mouse. He really isn't old enough to take control of the remote. My son also likes the Disney movies, such as Pinnochio, The Little Mermaid, Mary Poppins, Tarzan, and the Toy Story movies. Admittedly, if your children don't like these movies, they won't have the same attachment to Disney that our family does.

[raidermatt]

IOATech- I must have missed the Universal announcement 8 days prior to Disney's on 12/3. The Orlando Sentinel (not exactly a Disney cheerleader), said this about Universal's additions:

"Universal will offer its existing 12,500 park employees additional hours over the holidays, then hire seasonal employees to meet the remaining need, spokesman Jim Canfield said."

Disney has been increasing hours for current employees, and is hiring both seasonal and permanent employees.

Regardless, the point is there isn't much difference in risk between Universal's announcement that I guess came on 11/25 (right date?), and Disney's on 12/3. Both came after it became clear that holiday crowds would be large, though not up to last year's numbers. Had Universal announced this in October, it would have been a risk.

When does Universal's fiscal year end? Did they actually anounce that the hirings would fully replace those let go? (Its not that I doubt your info, I just want to ascertain if its based on opinion, an anouncement, or some other source.) Unless Universal's fiscal year ends this quarter, its not really fair to speculate on the number of hirings Disney will have by then.

As for the hotel ownership, larworth makes some good points about the plusses and minuses. But essentially "outsourcing" the hotels would not be received well among Disney fans. It would be viewed as just another cost-cutting move. Similar to turning over ride development to outside companies, and letting go of Imagineers. Yet this is already common practice for Universal. I find it very ironic that some are angered by these types of moves when Disney makes them, and says they will now go to Universal. Yet Universal did things that way to begin with.

I know I'm coming off as anti-Universal, but I'm really not. I have no problem with what they are doing. If I did, we wouldn't be considering spending a day or two there. Its just that there are some pretty apparent double standards being applied.

[raidermatt]

BobO- I basically agree with a lot of what you are saying, and I see this as more of a threat to Disney than a new Universal resort or discounted ticket.

I will say this, I grew-up in the 70's when there was a dearth of strong Disney animated films. I liked Disney, but there wasn't much of it on TV or in the movies. The cartoons I watched were Bugs Bunny, Porky Pig, Woody Woodpecker, Popeye, etc. I still like these characters, but they simply do not appeal to the human spirit the way films like Peter Pan, Pinnochio, The Lion King, and Toy Story do. Same with the Nick stuff.

The Universal films are somewhat of a different story. Films like ET, Back to the Future and Jurassic Park have large appeal, and are a big plus for Universal.

But I still contend that for the most part, Universal is not hurting Disney. Until the recession, both resorts were seeing record crowds. Universal may have designs on taking away more of Disney's core customers, but they need to be careful. Everybody wants to take on the top dog until he bites back...

(BTW, I've seen how Paramount runs a park, and while they can make money at it, they will never be a threat to Disney or Universal unless they change their ways.)

[Earl]

Raidermatt, I respectfully disagree with some of your opinions but can clearly understand your viewpoint. Mine differs as I am in the middle of this and have been for many years.

Just as a matter of information only, Universal's fiscal year does end this quarter, 12/31. Those positions cut from Universal are not scheduled to be refilled. They did a restructuring that changed the core management to a single line responsibility for both parks. Those folks whose hours were cut can hopefully look for hours to be restored as business picked up. Universal is offering available hours to all of it's current employees before going outside for new hires. Disney is hiring without restoring full hours to current employees.

Disney has a rich long history of providing entertainment, in film and theme parks. A large number of people have supported Disney for years, especially those with children. Universal does not have that legacy, and targets a slightly different market. I would not have any concern about Universal waking the sleeping dog. Universal has a tremendous amount of ambition right now, a huge, growing spirit in it's employees. They are not going after Disney. They are focused on becoming the best resort destination and grabbing the bigger share of the pie. I must say that knowing both sides as well as I do, that I honestly beleive that they will be successful. There is a huge difference in the management teams of these two companies. The general public could never understand just how much. Personally, this is where Universal will shine. Disney will be fine, Universal will be better than ever before.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Earl that was very inspiring.


Since today is the 100 Years Celebration of Walt and also the big press conference for all new Disney things when can we expect something similar from Uni?

[Earl]

Well, there's no big milestones going on at Universal right now. They don't typically do the big fanfare announcements that Disney does. Typically something is already underway before it goes public. At least there's no risk of announcing something and never building it.

There are several things being stirred in the pot, shall we stay. It's hard to say exatly if and when something will come about. I would dare say that one should stay tuned.

[raidermatt]

Earl- I think that while we may not agree on all of the "why" and "how", our conclusions are the same. Universal is going to do very well, and will have a growth rate larger than that of WDW. WDW will continue to grow, and do just fine, just as you say.

And, we, the vacationing public will be the better for it, having what appears to be two world class resort destinations so close together. (I only say appears since I haven't actually been to Universal Florida yet. But everything I see says first class.)

[Bob O]

Raidermatt i would agree that Paramount parks arent a threat to disney but the two i have been too i liked alot and my kids really enjoyed their kid areas which were excellant and they wear their "Beastie" shirts alot(lol). I would love disney to put a classic coaster like the Beast in their parks or a XLC hypersonic with disney type themeing. I think they are hurting disney with the teenage/young adult population and that could lead to furthur losses as they grow up.
Earl i think with the quality of live action films Universal has created they are building a legacy for the younger generation and films they can use to inspire rides and shows for their parks and with disneys recent movie output(besides pixar)their isnt alot their.

[Hockeyman]

Im gonna have to agree with Bob O. I definetly think Universal has a big edge with the teenage/young adult age group. Myself being part of that age group (23),find that more people around my age would much rather go to IOA over Disney any day of the week. Universal just appeals more to us than Disney. I think now that a lot of people my age are growing up going to Universal that it will have a big impact on our kids going there as well down the road. So in the long run instead of us staying a couple days at Disney we stay a couple at Universal. With that happening, as Earl said, Universal will have a bigger share of the pie.

[Dragon0525]

We're just back from our vacation. PBH hotel was so nice and the Polynesian so bad we checked out early and went back to PBH! We also went back to IOA-you can't beat the front of the line access for rides while staying onsite!! It was great!