Brazil to be added to WS?

[TisBit]

First, I agree that most american's could not tell you the difference between Brazil and Mexico (most probably don't know they are even different continents a great many probably think that brazil is in mexico). Just look at the geographical abilities of most American's...many cannot even tell you where Ohio is on a map and you want expect them to understand the differences between ANY two latin american countries? But, as already mentioned, it could be a good reason for a Brazil Pavilion.

As for adding an E-ticket to WS, it could make sense. Just because they opened a ride in WS, does not mean they have to open the shops/restaurants in WS. An E-Ticket in WS would help divide the crowds at park opening from Soarin and Test Track...pulling more people into the WS area's. If the decision is made to pull those people into WS, it would need to be supported with at least a few decent attractions as well. I think this would help Epcot in a whole, but I am not sure Disney is ready to surrender WS to attractions based area.

 

[deej696]

I'll join the "believe it when I see it crowd," although it would be nice to have another stop on our "Drinking Around the World" trips

 

[4tinkerbe]

that sounds cool. but what we really need is an update on the african pavillion all they got is a hut with a man carving wood and some bongos.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

FW is largely staffed by college program and exchange students. I don't think staffing there is a major cost -- I think it doesn't open early because there's no reason to open it early, there's nothing there anyone is in a hurry to see... plus, it's so far from the park entrance that most people don't even realize it's not open at the same time as the rest of the park.

1 extra employee is a major issue for WDW...and paying a penny per extra employee is an issue too.

It shouldn't be...but it has been for at least 12 years...Cutting out employees or redistributing them massively to add as much revenue generation as possible is perhaps the single consistent goal at WDW. If is their prime focus in cost cutting...

so while everybody discussing rides in the showcase makes some valid points or brings good ideas...the safe money is that any additional cost in employee compensation is a deal breaker.

And besides...now we got more threads about "african pavilions" - which is problematic because a. Africa is a continent and continents don't have tourism boards to pay WDW construction and upkeep costs...which were originally and still gonna be insisted upon and b. Morocco is...in fact...in Africa.

But it's already amping up expectations...this talk of Brazil. I'm gonna state this so it cannot be misunderstood: there will be no new country pavilions in EPCOT...
it is not going to make sense to them to invest the capital. people already walk around Fallout lake...so how much money is there to be made by another stop? Some...now compare that to the cost of maintenance, staffing, and upkeep?

see...here's the problem.

we had this one with Israel, Spain, Austrailia...its all smoke and no fire.

I'll believe it when dirt moves...not one second earlier. I wouldn't even believe a press conference from these clowns at this point.

 

[nytimez]

1 extra employee is a major issue for WDW...and paying a penny per extra employee is an issue too.

It shouldn't be...but it has been for at least 12 years...Cutting out employees or redistributing them massively to add as much revenue generation as possible is perhaps the single consistent goal at WDW. If is their prime focus in cost cutting...

You don't think the beancounters might not run their numbers and find that the draw of a major E-ticket attraction in WS might outweigh the costs of extra staff for two hours?

That said, as I mentioned earlier, I don't think this is happening. But I'd love to be wrong on this.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

You don't think the beancounters might not run their numbers and find that the draw of a major E-ticket attraction in WS might outweigh the costs of extra staff for two hours?

That said, as I mentioned earlier, I don't think this is happening. But I'd love to be wrong on this.

no...i don't believe any ride now attracts enough new visitors to warrant an investment based on potential new gate revenue...and that's what you're proposing...

not only can they not build a merry go round for less than 100 million now...the fact that WDWs business is a majority of repeat customers now makes the idea that rides will bring in enough new people and cash they wouldn't get already obselete.

The parks attendance on the whole stays fairly consistent...it goes up across the board in good times and slumps in bad. Offhand i don't remember a significant bump from either of their last two big rides...midway mania and everest...just perhaps a little more buzz from locals and repeat offenders.

And i agree with you...you're right...and no, i don't want you to be

 

[raidermatt]

no...i don't believe any ride now attracts enough new visitors to warrant an investment based on potential new gate revenue...and that's what you're proposing...

not only can they not build a merry go round for less than 100 million now...the fact that WDWs business is a majority of repeat customers now makes the idea that rides will bring in enough new people and cash they wouldn't get already obselete.

The parks attendance on the whole stays fairly consistent...it goes up across the board in good times and slumps in bad. Offhand i don't remember a significant bump from either of their last two big rides...midway mania and everest...just perhaps a little more buzz from locals and repeat offenders.

And i agree with you...you're right...and no, i don't want you to be

Of course the question that must be asked is "Do new rides not bump attendance because they are simply not good enough / plentiful enough?"

Perhaps the reason it's difficult to find a correlation between new rides and attendance bumps is that Disney is only doing enough to maintain attendance, and instead is trying to acheive financial growth by getting more $$$ out of the folks who do go.

It seems unrealistic to expect a single ride, even a good one like TSM, to significantly drive up attendance in a resort the size of WDW.

Unfortunately any additions at WDW are incremental so we aren't going to get an answer anytime soon.

 

[ChrisFL]

Of course the question that must be asked is "Do new rides not bump attendance because they are simply not good enough / plentiful enough?"

Perhaps the reason it's difficult to find a correlation between new rides and attendance bumps is that Disney is only doing enough to maintain attendance, and instead is trying to acheive financial growth by getting more $$$ out of the folks who do go.

It seems unrealistic to expect a single ride, even a good one like TSM, to significantly drive up attendance in a resort the size of WDW.

Unfortunately any additions at WDW are incremental so we aren't going to get an answer anytime soon.

I agree there's some interesting ways of thinking there. Maybe that's why there's a real expansion of Fantasyland coming soon.

The question is does a new ride in DHS or AK just take away from one of the other parks attendance (ignoring the competition for a moment)?

 

[nytimez]

no...i don't believe any ride now attracts enough new visitors to warrant an investment based on potential new gate revenue...and that's what you're proposing...

not only can they not build a merry go round for less than 100 million now...the fact that WDWs business is a majority of repeat customers now makes the idea that rides will bring in enough new people and cash they wouldn't get already obselete.

The parks attendance on the whole stays fairly consistent...it goes up across the board in good times and slumps in bad. Offhand i don't remember a significant bump from either of their last two big rides...midway mania and everest...just perhaps a little more buzz from locals and repeat offenders.

And i agree with you...you're right...and no, i don't want you to be

OK, let me throw a hypothetical out there then: This being the World Showcase, let's say they really did find some sucker to "sponsor" a Brazil pavilion... let's call it the Pan-American Alliance of Brazilian Lingerie & Underwear Models.

Anyway, let's say this group says it will sponsor a pavilion and pony up cash to help pay for an E-ticket "Kong-like" attraction... but they want it to be open for the park's full hours.

Does Disney bite? Does the sponsor money outweigh to extra dollars needed to keep WS open... or do they reject it out of hand? Or do they do the very un-Disney like thing and have guests walk past empty/closed shops and attractions to get to the new Brazil pavilion and its Kong-like ride?

I have no idea how Disney would handle that -- but that would at least make it tempting, no? And if there was a new pavilion (and again, I think there won't be), it would be done at least in part with someone else's money, right?

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

Keep in mind that Future World normally closes at 7 p.m., but at least Test Track, Soarin', and Spaceship Earth normally stay open until 9 p.m.

A highly popular attraction or even a whole country in World Showcase could open earlier than 11 a.m., even if other doors in World Showcase are still locked.

Guests who enter Epcot between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. through the International Gateway walk through a section of World Showcase with locked doors and kiosks with their canvas lowered.

 

[ChrisFL]

The WS entrance is closed on the west side past the Canada and UK Pavilions before 11:00 AM isn't it?

So theoretically they could, say put in another pavilion between Canada and the U.K. (removing the World Showplace...again hypothetically) and run the Brazilian Lingerie/Carnaval/Formula1 E-Ticket

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

The WS entrance is closed on the west side past the Canada and UK Pavilions before 11:00 AM isn't it?

Yes. It's closed because there's no reason for anyone to enter either side of World Showcase from Future World before 11 a.m. (except possibly go back to their room at an Epcot resort through International Gateway).

If there were a reason to open either side of World Showcase, Disney could certainly allow foot traffic to the open attraction or country (and then possibly have the promenade roped off after that).

So theoretically they could, say put in another pavilion between Canada and the U.K. (removing the World Showplace...again hypothetically) and run the Brazilian Lingerie/Carnaval/Formula1 E-Ticket

They could but a new country in any unused slot in World Showcase. The new country could keep the same hours as the rest of World Showcase, or if there were a good business reason to open it earlier, then that's possible too.

 

[blana]

OK, let me throw a hypothetical out there then: This being the World Showcase, let's say they really did find some sucker to "sponsor" a Brazil pavilion... let's call it the Pan-American Alliance of Brazilian Lingerie & Underwear Models.

Anyway, let's say this group says it will sponsor a pavilion and pony up cash to help pay for an E-ticket "Kong-like" attraction... but they want it to be open for the park's full hours.

Does Disney bite? Does the sponsor money outweigh to extra dollars needed to keep WS open... or do they reject it out of hand? Or do they do the very un-Disney like thing and have guests walk past empty/closed shops and attractions to get to the new Brazil pavilion and its Kong-like ride?

I have no idea how Disney would handle that -- but that would at least make it tempting, no? And if there was a new pavilion (and again, I think there won't be), it would be done at least in part with someone else's money, right?

To an extent, don't they already do this everyday with the Akershus breakfasts? (And now, the AAA storytime, also held in the Norway pavillion.) Have people walk into WS, with nothing open anywhere around them except what they're going to, and then, if they go early enough, have to slip back out into FW.

 

[nytimez]

Guests who enter Epcot between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. through the International Gateway walk through a section of World Showcase with locked doors and kiosks with their canvas lowered.

To an extent, don't they already do this everyday with the Akershus breakfasts? (And now, the AAA storytime, also held in the Norway pavillion.)

Yes, and you can enter MK early if you have an early breakfast reservation at Crystal Palace, I believe... and this did occur to me. I suppose it's possible... but letting the relatively small number of people through part of WS early is a little different from letting mobs of people through, past empty shops and closed attractions. They could do it -- but it just seems so un-Disney-like.

The WS entrance is closed on the west side past the Canada and UK Pavilions before 11:00 AM isn't it?

So theoretically they could, say put in another pavilion between Canada and the U.K. (removing the World Showplace...again hypothetically) and run the Brazilian Lingerie/Carnaval/Formula1 E-Ticket

They could -- but I don't know if they would, World Showplace (I think that's what it's called) brings in money. They use it for conferences and private events.

I think the biggest empty ready-to-go plot of land is the one next to Germany, I think that's the spot they could fit two countries in if they wanted to... or one big one with an E-ticket.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

OK, let me throw a hypothetical out there then: This being the World Showcase, let's say they really did find some sucker to "sponsor" a Brazil pavilion... let's call it the Pan-American Alliance of Brazilian Lingerie & Underwear Models.

Anyway, let's say this group says it will sponsor a pavilion and pony up cash to help pay for an E-ticket "Kong-like" attraction... but they want it to be open for the park's full hours.

Does Disney bite? Does the sponsor money outweigh to extra dollars needed to keep WS open... or do they reject it out of hand? Or do they do the very un-Disney like thing and have guests walk past empty/closed shops and attractions to get to the new Brazil pavilion and its Kong-like ride?

I have no idea how Disney would handle that -- but that would at least make it tempting, no? And if there was a new pavilion (and again, I think there won't be), it would be done at least in part with someone else's money, right?

I see what you're going for here...and it would have to be an AWFUL amount of money to get the reaction you're proposing...but your idea is a sound one.

The problem is that you have to believe that the original country sponsorship deals turned out to be a bad one for the original 10 countries...little if any re-investment has ever been done in the pavilions...particularly no major additions to any country...and since the last deal musta been struck around 1984-85 at the latest to allow for construction (norway)...then obviously they've never had any serious discussions about new takers.

And last time i checked...the entire global market/ economy is really in flux and kinda in a transition period...since the "how high" response to any american demand isnt' sitting as well anymore.

So i like you're thinking...i just don't see any country putting together a "knock your socks off" package that would warrant this kinda response.

 

[raidermatt]

Disney would be all over that like a cheap suit. You're right though that nobody is making that kind of offer and that's why no new countries have been added in over 20 years.

I agree there's some interesting ways of thinking there. Maybe that's why there's a real expansion of Fantasyland coming soon.

It's nowhere near big enough to get an answer to the question though. If MK were a standalone park, sure. But when you look at it as being spread across 4 parks (+2 water parks), while none of the other three are getting anything signifincat, it looks less impressive.

That's not to say it's meaningless or shouldn't be done, but as an attempt to actually increase new attendance, nope.

The question is does a new ride in DHS or AK just take away from one of the other parks attendance (ignoring the competition for a moment)?

Certainly the rides Disney has been adding seem to just move people around.

That's not completely fair though, because we could make a case that had they not built EE and TSM for example, attendance might have fallen.

But at best, they are simply doing enough to maintain the number of turnstile clicks.

Think of it this way, many standalone parks have to add new attractions every year to acheive any growth. WDW is working from a much larger scale and it would follow that addtions would need to be greater to drive growth. Obviously they don't believe that kind of investment would be wise for them.

Of course, it's also possible that if Disney simply made BETTER new attractions, that could also do the trick. Mission:Space, for example, was not an inexpensive addition and Disney probably viewed it as bad investment since it didn't drive attendance.

But had it been the hit they had hoped, who knows?

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Of course the question that must be asked is "Do new rides not bump attendance because they are simply not good enough / plentiful enough?"

Perhaps the reason it's difficult to find a correlation between new rides and attendance bumps is that Disney is only doing enough to maintain attendance, and instead is trying to acheive financial growth by getting more $$$ out of the folks who do go.

It seems unrealistic to expect a single ride, even a good one like TSM, to significantly drive up attendance in a resort the size of WDW.

Unfortunately any additions at WDW are incremental so we aren't going to get an answer anytime soon.

I'm late on this...but that's the whole ballgame

They have plausible deniability on practically everything at this point. so now that the property has been fleshed out (incompletely...but nonetheless) and contains so many facets under one umbrella (cruise ships in california and hotels in Hawaii and South Carolina being a couple)...the numbers say absolutely nothing about anything.

And that is a critical difference...the blessing of size means that now no factors are indicative of anything that will mean that some new stuff should be built.

So while they could just strengthen Animal Kingdom and MGM and pump a little blood into grandpa...they don't have too.
Because the numbers say nothing.

It's kinda the "too big to fail...or be held accountable for anything" in amusements model.

I call it the "GoldmanSachs-o-coaster" brought to you by Bollinger and Mabillard

 

[elejpee]

Its a great post.