Growth versus maintenance

[sachilles]

There has been a bit of discussion lately on this topic in several threads in this section. Trying to centralize it a bit in hopes of not derailing the main premise of the others.

I'm curious what folks expectations are from the Florida property, and I'm curious what your frequency of visit is.

In the recent years, we've seen the completion of New Fantasyland. Avatar land at the MK has begun. Closing attractions at DHS has lead to rumors of Pixar and Star Wars related additions/substitutions.

I see a few scenarios. Disney adding attractions where none existed previous. Disney removing attractions and replacing them with more than were in the area before. Disney removing one attraction, and replacing it with another for a zero sum gain. Disney removing an attraction with short term plans to replace it with anything...leaving the space vacant.

My opinion, expansions are ideal, as they don't impact the current guest for the most part. They take away little from the current guest experience to put in place. However, when completed they represent additional operating costs. If money were no object, this what folks would want to see, constant new content without losing old content. At some point the place would become too big and run out of space to develop. It costs a lot of money, and you likely don't bring in enough additional people short term to see a real return on the investment.

Next you have the scenario where attractions are removed, and in their place attractions are built with a gain in customer capacity. This is ideal for the company, as it likely makes things more efficient to operate. The end result is more people in the same amount of space and labor. The downside is that during construction, you are losing capacity in a large way. However when complete the investment can justify itself.

Next you have the scenario of zero sum gain. One attraction removed and replaced with something of similar capacity. Likely happening when the original attraction becomes tired and a maintenance nightmare. While it may not increase capacity on paper, increased reliability might be an upside, if the older attraction has a lot of downtime to age/maintenance. Again you lose capacity during construction, however when it is reopened, you have something "new" to entice guests.

Additionally I think it can be argued to remove attractions and replace them with higher quality attractions yet less capacity. IE it serves less people, but the theme is far better etc.

Lastly, you just shut the doors on an attraction. Replace it with nothing.

I anticipate visiting every 2 years, at about 7 days per visit.

My opinion, is that large projects are unreasonable to expect to happen concurrently. It requires a lot of resources, planning and they can impact the guest experience. I do think you can see some overlap.
New Fantasyland opened in full right about when Avatarland started. I think we will see a large expansion at DHS as Avatarland is approaching completion(and Disney Springs is completed). I think we will see minor changes short term at DHS in the interim. I'm betting we see something big happen to Epcot after the DHS big project.
As a result I think folks can expect something new on the large scale every three years. Those that visit every year will likely see something new every visit, but not always something large.

My last visit was was May 2013, and I will be there late April 2015. In 2013, I found New Fantasyland open, but with construction walls for 7DMT.
On this visit, will find Disney Springs to be vastly different but not completed. I will find walls where Avatarland is to be. I will find an expanded hub at MK. I will not find a hat. I'll get to ride 7DMT, but not the back lot tour.
Many rides will be new to us, as my son is still young, but now tall enough to ride things he could not on his previous visit.

What is reasonable for you?
I expect when I visit every two years: Two new attractions(one a ride, one some other type of experience), a new eating experience, a new show, an option for newly refurbished lodging. I expect to go off-peak when crowds are smaller. With that I expect at least three rides to be in refurb mode. I expect to find one to develop a maintenance issue. I expect a 7 day visit, with 6 of those in the parks.
I expect sore feet. I expect to burn as many calories as I consume. I expect to have a buzz at least one evening. I expect to be $5k poorer. I expect to whine about the heat at least one day and the rain another day.

 

[wallrock]

This is coming from someone who visits between one and two times a year depending on vacation availability, and usually around the same time (Spring and Fall).

I’ll preface my comments by pointing out something that seems to be a common thread amongst those who think Disney is ‘doing great things’ – many of those ‘great things’ are nothing more than rumor. Only when something is verified by corporate do I consider its merits (or lack thereof). I don’t point this out as a negative, but to keep perspective. I hear repeated comments that Star Wars is coming – and in some form or another it probably will – but at this point again we have nothing but rumor and speculation.

Of the scenarios you speak of I think that Disney takes the path of least resistance and cost, so essentially it depends on the circumstances. The true expansion scenario is one that I think all of us would like to see, but know deep down that it probably won’t happen. The days of adding an additional theme park in Orlando are all but gone in my book. To your point it raises operating costs – something Disney is trying to avoid and even cut back on.

Your second scenario with removal/replace with something of more substance…I think Disney will do something like that when it benefits the bottom line, and whatever is done will be viewed subjectively. The removal of Maelstrom and replacing with Frozen will be considered by some as a replacement with more substance while others won’t, but Disney is doing it because they see an opportunity to increase revenue without ‘expanding’ and the victim of the replacement was the cheapest option for Disney.

The zero sum game…probably the most common one with very different perspectives. Guests may perceive a zero sum (or slightly more than zero) if the replacement is a gift shop/restaurant/hard ticket event and the item being replaced is a standard attraction, but Disney will see it as a plus because they replaced something that didn’t generate revenue with something that did (in addition to park admittance). This is what I think the Disney mindset is today and in the foreseeable future. Again this is somewhat subjective. There are many that think Disney Springs is going to be great. For me, it's nothing more than a shopping mall. Why spend money on a flight to Orlando to buy something that I can get at home? At least put something there that would make me want to go there.

The close doors and do nothing option…Hollywood Studios fits this bill well, with again nothing but rumors on what may or may not be coming. All we’ve had confirmations on thus far are closings. Hard to say what will happen there because as I’ve said in other threads Hollywood Studios is the park that failed - designed as a working studio and it didn’t make it – and now Disney has to ponder what to do with it and hopefully avoid having to cut a large check to make it happen.

The common theme in my comments here and in other threads is that I don’t expect Disney to continue with the expansion days of old, but I do expect some of the core elements that made Disney what it is today to continue. In times past Disney would roll the dice on things like Epcot or on a single attraction like Pirates of the Caribbean. Today Disney is far more calculated. Unless there is a merchandising tie in there’s no way Disney would create a single attraction as complex as Universe of Energy or Spaceship Earth today. Other things like overall cleanliness (not nearly as many sweepers in the streets as before) and allowing partially working attractions to languish until they are forced to do something would have been unheard of a decade ago. Construction was more hidden from guests in the past, largely because the guest experience was more important than saving a nickel. Today the Polynesian has looked like a war zone and little thought has been given to the guest experience. You can’t hide all construction, but why not offset the problem by reducing the cost of a room? With the attractions that have closed in Hollywood Studios, why not drop the cost of admission until you get the replacements in place? Disney’s thought process is to do the opposite – increase prices to the point of absurdity.

What is reasonable to me is to simply get my money’s worth. If you raise prices, fine, but don’t close something if you don’t have a replacement. You want to charge me five hundred bucks for a deluxe room? No problem if you make the experience worth the cost. For five hundred bucks I better not see trash in the hallways, stains on the room furniture and I'd prefer someone other than a college student who’s there temporarily, with little or no training, handling guest’s needs.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Ohh...I'll play!

I have spent roughly 20 days on property annually since I stopped spending 250 days on property in 2002...

To be honest though...I have a DVC PAP that expires in July...and at the current structure it is unlikely we will continue to renew...more likey to go to an "every other year model"

Which is stupid for Disney...because I spend far more in their overpriced restaurants and bars than I do on tickets annually...

So they will drive the baby out with the bath water...

Am I suggesting that they institute an almost "permenant" ticket break that favors some of the most loyal/invested customers?

Yep...I 100% am.

But I bet the bookies are more of the "now we got 'em" mindset...


Maintenance versus improvement?

It has been - my take - nearly 100% maintenance since around 2000...I can actually argue they are in the negative.

Amusement parks ( that is what they fundamentally still are) are a diminishing return operation that suffer from stagnation and can have elements rendered obselete.

Am I suggesting 10 new thrill rides a year? Of course no...Disney has the advantage of not having to do as much as six flags hurl adventure regarding rides..because of the character properties and theming.

It's a gift/advantage... But I think it's being slowly bludgeoned at this current philosophy/ course.

The capital reinvestment has slowed to the point where it is not even keeping up with stagnation...to say nothing of reductions/closures.

Fantasyland...is more or less a net zero... Especially if you open your eyes and realize that the last major work in magic kingdom prior was Tomorrowland redo in 95-96...

That's alot of years of net zero.

The other parks are worse... As EPCOT has been reduced and MGM has had at best a "piecemeal" approach.

Now...animal kingdom is getting bonafife addition...so I'll give partial credit until delivery there...C.O.D.

And downtown should be an expanding/ better experience. But I'm beginning to worry that they don't have enough to deliver due to the rat demands...which killed the "Hyperion wharf" concept and are tough to ask for in what's becoming a post brick and mortar world.

And then of course... I have to mention my "club members"...DVC.

Real "addition" there...which is nice for me.
But I'm not a fool...the more units...the more disincentive for them to build attractions.

Why pay more to bring them when you know they're coming?
It's naive to think otherwise based on pattern and common sense.

 

[George4]

I think what further complicates your question(s) is that if you say the park is a zero/sum game (maintenance plan), while park attendance continues to increase, then the audience is losing ground. More people are getting piled into the parks with no new places to go. Crowds increase, lines increase and enjoyment gradually erodes. This is what I am seeing from neighbors and friends that have decided they don't need to go back - they feel like their dollar doesn't go as far at Disney as it can other places for their entertainment.

I don't really know what attendance was in the 70's and 80's, but I can tell you that I have distinct memories of sitting in the Tommorowland Cafe with only one other family during a late lunch. Try finding any time that it is that empty except within a few minutes of when it opens. The net gain in attendance (I think around 10,000 daily avg. in 1975 to around 50,000 now) is up five-fold. While I understand that lots of other things play into it, I think there needs some level of expansion to spread out these additional crowds and to try to increase attendance a little more, especially at the non-MK parks. MK needs a little bit of an expansion (10,000 riders per hour worth of attractions and restaurants), but DHS and EPCOT need attractions to service close to 20,000 per hour in my opinion and those are pretty big expansions. It is hard to know how AK will fare after its current expansion. If it expands the rides and the hours at the same time, that may alleviate some of the crunch on park space, but that central intersection is incredibly crowded at times, as is the trail going through Asia - that is almost impassable at times in June, July and December at least.

Total ride/attraction capacity should match the attendance you are working for in the park. If your parks handles 40,000 avg. per day, then you should be able to process around 80,000 riders per hour IMHO. There is no need to force 2-3 hour waits for some rides.

So, in short, expand now, and then works towards 1-2 additions in each park per year with some being small maintenance style improvements and others being large maintenance improvements, but the parks are not ready to handle their current attendance without big expansions at most of them.

 

[mom2rtk]

So you're saying a ride rationing system wasn't enough?

 

[George4]

ummmm.....no.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

So you're saying a ride rationing system wasn't enough?

Hilarious...lol. Well played

 

[eliza61]

So you're saying a ride rationing system wasn't enough?

Lol

 

[Josh Hendy]

I'm with you on wanting/expecting a rate of expansion corresponding to the increase in crowd size, as well as continual renewal, replacement or updating of tired rides.

I don't know what the "first time/only time" market is but I think it must be large, and not only large but a big source of cash. In my circle of family/friends there isn't a single other family who are multiple-visitors to WDW like my family, who do research, figure out the best value for $, make a touring plan, do rope drop, etc. Most families that I know have done a "just once" trip to WDW. Some of them really overpaid and got too big of a "package vacation" for what they needed to experience in WDW and what they could afford. I would also say that not a single one of those families "got hooked" on WDW and started planning to make more trips. When I asked them about their trips, none of them were really positive on their trip. Nearly all of them complained about the crowds and queues, and one family specifically said, "We could never afford to do that again." And this was circa 1995-2010, not in the more recent, record-attendance and sky-high-price years.

The one-and-done crowd don't know about crowd levels, number of attractions per visitor then and now, resort hotel value for $, quality of CS or TS food options, whether rides are new and exciting or lame and tired, or anything like that ... until it's too late.

Based on this anecdotal survey I would guess that the one-and-dones outnumber the WDW veteran families by about 5:1. But the veterans visit maybe 5 times on average. So the number of visits is very roughly the same, or in other words there is maybe a 50:50 split in the parks at any one time. But the newbs might spend a lot more, having perhaps bought a deluxe package vacation including extras like meal plans, concierge service, water park visits, etc. that veterans might not bother with. So the newbs may be worth more to Disney than the frequent guests. Depending on the actual ratio and actual spending/profits, Disney might very well decide that park growth and renewal are "barely worth it" or need only be done strategically once in a while in order to put something new into promotional ads.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

See...Eisner attempted to grow the "frequent" segment...and had long term success with it.

But they have all but abandoned it.


Well...the Brazilian economy hasn't collapse (yet)....and everybody is rich beyond their dreams with Apple and Exxon stock...

Things are just great. They'll never go down again.

Good thing too...disney doesn't seem to have a plan for that

 

[Cormoran]

IMO, disney is trying to avoid building new attractions. I also think it's really funny when posters excuse Disney for taking such a long time to build attractions. NFL 7 years, Avartarland another 7 years. For the 1968 World's Fair attractions were built in 1-2 years. Those same attractions are still up and running at DLR to this day. I don't think it's the attractions that take so long, it is the way the money dribbles out of corporate to finance these attractions.

The shift has changed under Eiger. The goal seems to be packing people in, but not really worrying about the guest experience. NFL was built to allow an additional 5,000 guests into the park on peak attendance days. I will also bet the hub improvement serves the same purpose. Richard Petty was closed and will be converted to a parking lot. I just feel Disney is no longer concerned about the guest experience, it's about capacity.

I would bet that the closed attractions at DHS remain dark for at least 1 more year, probably 2 years. I don't think Disney is in any hurry to spend the money needed for park improvements. I would also be really surprised if Epcot saw any improvements within the next 10 years, aside from the frozen thing and the extra Soarin' screen. I think the focus is on sucking money out of the parks with as little re-investment as possible.

 

[mom2rtk]

IMO, disney is trying to avoid building new attractions.

No opinion needed. They recently flat out said they were not interested in an arms race of rides with US. That spoke volumes to me.

 

[Josh Hendy]

The expression "arms race" is certainly loaded, as if offering your customers more and better products is a bad thing. They act and talk as if building exciting, innovative theme park attractions and operating them profitably is a game that they can't win.

The thing about cash cows is that you can only milk them long enough to buy time to get the next generation of products out there. I hope that Disney doesn't become the Kodak of theme parks.

 

[mom2rtk]

The expression "arms race" is certainly loaded, as if offering your customers more and better products is a bad thing. They act and talk as if building exciting, innovative theme park attractions and operating them profitably is a game that they can't win.

The thing about cash cows is that you can only milk them long enough to buy time to get the next generation of products out there. I hope that Disney doesn't become the Kodak of theme parks.

Can't disagree with any of that. But I see it more as Disney thinking they can get away without engaging in the race....... as if they are above it. Only time will tell