Has Disney let Universal Catch Up In All Market Segments?

[pheneix]

>>>Universal won't have a Harry Potter or LOTR attractions anytime soon.<<<

Oh yes they will. It's a complicated issue (think of it like this: Universal owns the rights to the Charlie Brown characters in Japan, but in North America, Charile is at home in Cedar Fair's parks. When you put it in perspective like that things become a lot easier to understand), but the bottom line is that Universal is already drawing up an amazing plan to use both the Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings franchises*.

>>>1997? Let's get a little more up to date<<

Actually, if your are going for a market share comparison 1997 is the best year to start from, because that was the last year before Disney and Universal started adding more theme parks into the mix.

>>>Disney has Mickey's Philharmagic, Mission: SPACE, and the newly announced Animal Kingdom coaster. That sounds like expansion to me also.<<<

Two of which were replacements.

>>>These really aren't "additions" per se, just retooling of rides/shows that were already in place.<<<

The amount of ignorance on these boards astounds me...

*Can you say, "--- ----- ----"? I knew ya could!

 

[HB2K]

It may not be a half day park, but you certainly don't need more then two days between both Universal parks.

I don't think anyone's argued this point. But if people feel the Universal experince becomes a better value, I can see people making Universal's resort their homebase, and Disney starts fighting for the sloppy second one or two day stop overs.

Just because you have a 4 day hopper pass, nobody has "forced" you to spend that 4th day or any day at Animal Kingdom.

If Disney isn't trying to forcefully steer the customer to DAK, then why doesn't Disney adopt a daily park hopper? Why the minimum of a 4 day? Why did Disney increase the minimum purchasable ticket from 3 to 4 days when DAK opened?

Because most uninformed guests will use the last day to see something they haven't during the trip.

So either you force your guest to pay for a product they may not want, or you force them to pay for something twice. Either way you're forcing their hand.

 

[pheneix]

On a side note, is anyone here having problems with the boards in general? I'm having some freaky formatting errors when I am trying to load up a page here.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

On a side note, is anyone here having problems with the boards in general?

Me too!!

 

[Bob O]

Both of Universal's parks were built from day one to be full day parks which is a departure from disney which intentionally built MGM/AK as half day parks with the promise of someday giving you a full days activity and knew they could get away with this due to the park hopper. This is why AK will get people to come to the park for a couple hours till they get bored and go someplace else.
As said before disney is content to rest on their laurels/good will built over the years and maybe give us something every now and then, at the same times as they close already open attractions in the park lile 20k/Hunchback. While the older generations who love disney will buy this i believe younger/upcoming generations will not genuflect at the altar of disney like some here will do!!
This will affect the companies bottom line till they put the proper amount of money/time/effort/creativity into the parks like they used too!!!

 

[Eyesnur]

I haven't noticed anything freaky at all and I usually type standing on my head, drinking rum and singing 'Fat Bottomed Girls'...But thats just me...I'll let you know if anything weird happens!

 

[pheneix]

"Fat Bottomed Girls?" If you like Queen then I guess you're not all evil...

 

[Grand Canyon]

I don't know if this mean anything but we went to USF/IOA fall 2001 and loved it. My 2-DS both under 6 had fun (they loved the children’s areas). I am a die-hard WDW fan but this year instead of PAP we bought 30 day Fun in the Sun Passes and annual passes to USF/IOA. We will be in Kissimmee for the month of June and we plan to spend 20-30% of are time at USF/IOA. We will be spending as much time trying to get the Rug Rats, Scobby Do, Sponge Bob autographs as Mickey Mouse. USF/IOA is no WDW. I see no need to compare them. I have to admit that I was critical of the little things WDW does better but after awhile I was having so much fun I stopped looking for the little flaws. I think the main reason we tried USF/IO in the first place is that there had been very little new stuff at WDW for a few years. Also we got a 14 day pass to US/IOA, Sea World, Wet & Wild, and Bush Gardens for $200 each (2001) so for that price we gave it a try. The one thing I can say about USF/IO that could give WDW some problems is that USF/IO is in my opinion a better value for those who are trying to get a 5-7 day vacation on the cheep. Also these cheep APs will make USF lots of money from locals who will drop in for a few hours for diner and fun. Think about it I bought 4 APs to USF/IOA (with black out day that doesn’t affect my trip) for less than 1 child PAP to WDW. That has got to have some effect on WDW. We will not stop going to WDW (it is the best) but we will no longer be spending all are money there.

PS We went to DL fall 2000. The place was a dump!!! We hated it. Everything was so tread bare. We ask CMs what was up with the bad condition the park was in as we explained how beautiful WDW was. They told us “ this is no WDW”. We will never go back!!!!! The sad thing is we live only 7 hr. away from DL but will drive 38hrs to get to WDW.

 

[ChrisFL]

Originally posted by Eyesnur
Mickey Mouse is still Mickey Mouse. Shrek is forgotten already. Universal is building for now which is good for the consumer. They have what, 3 new announced attactions? Hey, so does WDW!

USF has two parks that are half day parks (by account of all except those Universal/IOA pumpers). WDW hs much, much more. WDW will continue to add attractions slowly, Universal will quickly run out of space.

Lastly, how many people go to USF for a whole week? Not many. The best case scenerio for USF is to continue to whittle a day or two from those WDW vacations. After that it's all about longevity. Winner? Disney by three lengths.

...Oh, one more thing. The parnership (I use the term loosely) between Blackstone & Vivendi has to be more complex than it appears otherwise why would Vivendi be holding it (it=a Universal that still can't service its debt) when they (Vivendi) so desperately need the cash?

Disney will add attractions slowly, like every 3 years, and that's assuming everything goes right and isn't plagued with problems (see Test Track and Rocket Rods).

It may not seem like it, but US and IOA have plenty of space to build new attractions, in fact there's enough property to the left of IOA to practically build another theme park, but they have 2,000 more acres for that. The extra property will probably have hotels, golf courses, etc. I'm guessing.

No people don't go to USF for a whole week...yet. If they build 2 more parks and several more resorts, some people will definitely spend their entire vacation there.

IMO, Disney needs to step up in a big way these next 10 years or they'll be hurting. And when I say step up, I don't mean building the fastest rollercoaster or whatever, but keeping up their attractions, making sure they are the best imagineers out there, and building to their customer base, not going into a thrill-ride war with UO.

But we all know that they got rid of many, many imagineers and CM's so far and don't seem to be stopping anytime soon. Meanwhile UO is gaining a lot of them, and that improves their edge on the customer experience.

One main problem in philosophy between Disney and UO is that Disney wants to rule everything, your entire vacation, and UO does not need anyone to spend a week to make money, they don't have hundreds of thousands of hotel rooms to try to fill up constantly. They are happy if people spend 2 or 3 days away from other parks. That's 2-3 days per family that UO gains and Disney loses.

I guess you could consider that UO has lower "overhead" than Disney right now.

 

[ChrisFL]

Originally posted by Grand Canyon
PS We went to DL fall 2000. The place was a dump!!! We hated it. Everything was so tread bare. We ask CMs what was up with the bad condition the park was in as we explained how beautiful WDW was. They told us “ this is no WDW”. We will never go back!!!!! The sad thing is we live only 7 hr. away from DL but will drive 38hrs to get to WDW.

To be fair, Universal Studios Hollywood is no Universal Orlando either from what I've heard

 

[HauntedMansionFan]

Originally posted by pheneix
The amount of ignorance on these boards astounds me...

There is no need for a personal attack.

Two of which were replacements.

Really? Only one by my count. Mickey's Philharmagic is taking over the space that the Lion King show once was in. The other two are going to be attractions built from the bottom up. Both Universal shows, Neutron and Shrek are using show elements that are already in place in their old shows.

but the bottom line is that Universal is already drawing up an amazing plan to use both the Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings franchises

We should all be so priveliged to have all the "inside" scoop on future unannounced attractions that you have.

Actually, if your are going for a market share comparison 1997 is the best year to start from, because that was the last year before Disney and Universal started adding more theme parks into the mix.

Ummm what? I think we are both making the same point. I never said that 1997 wasn't a good year to start, I simply posted some attendance figures from the two most recent years.

 

[HauntedMansionFan]

Originally posted by HB2K
If Disney isn't trying to forcefully steer the customer to DAK, then why doesn't Disney adopt a daily park hopper? Why the minimum of a 4 day? Why did Disney increase the minimum purchasable ticket from 3 to 4 days when DAK opened?

Because there now happen to be 4 parks. But again I don't see Michael Eisner holding a gun to a guests head telling them that they HAVE to go to Animal Kingdom. Taking your reasoning into effect, suppose that Disney only offered a 3 day hopper, the "uninformed" public would end up shelling out more money to pay for a one day pass to the 4th park of their choice if they do decide to go to a 4th park.

So either you force your guest to pay for a product they may not want, or you force them to pay for something twice. Either way you're forcing their hand.

So is that why Universal doesn't offer any type of hopper pass? So your forced to either buy another one day pass or their second day/second park pass.

 

[HauntedMansionFan]

Originally posted by ChrisFL
No people don't go to USF for a whole week...yet. If they build 2 more parks and several more resorts, some people will definitely spend their entire vacation there.

I'm left wondering what "theme" Universal could do next, without seeming like they are taking a que from Disney. Another thrill park? Why? When they could expand on IOA. An animal park? No. Not after the inital horror show of Animal Kingdom. An educational park? Epcot anyone? I'm not trying to make an attack, just wondering where they could go.

 

[Grand Canyon]

We went to USH in 1990 we were not very impressed. We spent the day and have never gone back. All I can remember about it was that it seemed very small.

 

[ChrisFL]

Originally posted by HauntedMansionFan
I'm left wondering what "theme" Universal could do next, without seeming like they are taking a que from Disney. Another thrill park? Why? When they could expand on IOA. An animal park? No. Not after the inital horror show of Animal Kingdom. An educational park? Epcot anyone? I'm not trying to make an attack, just wondering where they could go.

Well, there was talk of a western themed park a few years ago, or something similar...Yes, UO does have ideas that started from Disney, but that's what happens when UO is able to hire ex-imagineers. Disney has also done things that started with UO as well, namely MGM Studios, which was created as an attempt to outdo USF before it opened.

There are also some other interesting similarities, like CTX/Dinosaur vs. JP, and the Portofino Bay in TDS, vs. Portofino Bay at UO.

I really can't predict what will come next, but LOTR or Harry Potter is just 2 things they could make parts of a park on. I really don't know if they would do another park just like IOA.

I think they could do a futuristic theme park without looking like EPCOT, which really has lost what it used to be IMO.

 

[HauntedMansionFan]

Originally posted by pheneix

Oh yes they will. It's a complicated issue (think of it like this: Universal owns the rights to the Charlie Brown characters in Japan, but in North America, Charile is at home in Cedar Fair's parks. When you put it in perspective like that things become a lot easier to understand), but the bottom line is that Universal is already drawing up an amazing plan to use both the Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings franchises*.

From what I have found in some research is that Warner Brothers have exclusive rights to everything Harry Potter including foreign and domestic rights. And also that New Line Cinema has the same exclusive rights to LOTR, althought Fine Line Features (a division of New Line) holds most of the franchising rights, Fine Line having collaborated with Miramax (a division of Buena Vista pictures) on quite a few projects. So with that said, good we see "Beastly Kingdom" transformed into a LOTR area?

 

[ChrisFL]

Originally posted by HauntedMansionFan
From what I have found in some research is that Warner Brothers have exclusive rights to everything Harry Potter including foreign and domestic rights. And also that New Line Cinema has the same exclusive rights to LOTR, althought Fine Line Features (a division of New Line) holds most of the franchising rights, Fine Line having collaborated with Miramax (a division of Buena Vista pictures) on quite a few projects. So with that said, good we see "Beastly Kingdom" transformed into a LOTR area?

This quote came from JimHillMedia.com (quote I found on the USO boards)

" Speaking of Peter Jackson: Here's one reason that Disney's infamous Imagineers envy the folks at Universal Creative: Universal has the theme park rights to use all of J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" characters to build new shows and rides around. And here's another reason why Mickey gets jealous whenever anyone ever brings up Universal: You know J.K. Rowling's highly popular "Harry Potter" series. Universal Studios has the theme park rights to all of those characters as well. "

 

[HauntedMansionFan]

Originally posted by ChrisFL
Well, there was talk of a western themed park a few years ago, or something similar...Yes, UO does have ideas that started from Disney, but that's what happens when UO is able to hire ex-imagineers. Disney has also done things that started with UO as well, namely MGM Studios, which was created as an attempt to outdo USF before it opened.

Actually MGM Studios was first announced in 1985, Universal Studios Orlando was announced in 1986.

This quote came from JimHillMedia.com (quote I found on the USO boards)

Interesting. Conflicting stories. What a shocker! Guess we will have to search more on this one.

 

[ChrisFL]

Originally posted by HauntedMansionFan
Actually MGM Studios was first announced in 1985, Universal Studios Orlando was announced in 1986.

Yes, but the plans were laid out in ~1982 I believe. They had the property bought for a LONG time before they began anything

 

[HauntedMansionFan]

The only thing I can find about Harry Potter is that Warner Brothers do indeed have the exclusive rights, their parent company being AOL/Time Warner. But after having sold off their theme park division to Premier, thus allowing more Six Flags parks. So it is questionable that we will ever see Harry Potter in any theme park manifestation on these shores, unless Warner strikes some deal with Universal, much like how Dreamworks subcontracts to Universal.

Here is the other rub. New Line has exclusive rights over Lord of the Rings, one of the executive producers of LOTR is Harvey Weinstein the head honcho of Miramax (a subdivision of Buena Vista pictures) so there is an "in" for Disney. But then again, either company obtaining the sole rights for their park would come with quite a hefty price tag.