Has Disney let Universal Catch Up In All Market Segments?

[HauntedMansionFan]

Originally posted by raidermatt


Where did you find the numbers you posted?

I believe that it was Theme Park Insider... but I will have to double check on the site. I just did a Google search and pulled up some results.

Go look under AV for an essay about the troubles between Eisner and Miramax over Lord of the Rings. After reading that it is fairly obvious why LOTR isn't a Disney property.

That doesn't prove that HP and LOTR are "definitely" coming to Universal.

 

[pheneix]

If you looked for any 2002 numbers from Theme Park Insider then it would have been one of my threads, since I supplied an unfinished list to the thread in the hopes that others would come along and round it out.

That being the case, I KNOW that the numbers that I posted there were the numbers that Raidermatt posted here, and not the numbers that you posted.

 

[Testtrack321]

Oh, so this is my thread. I'm that pivatal 'teen' group that Disney is aiming for now and people said Universal 'owns' already.

I can say, with extreme amount of confidence, that this statement is false. I have talked to many kids of differing backgrounds, ages, and opinions, and found that nearly ALL perfer Disney to Universal. But what gets them going to Universal is the coasters. Simple as that. They love Disney, the dark rides, the themeing, everything. But they only go to Universal for the coasters. They would stay at Disney if it had more big time thrill rides. Simple as that. And Disney knows that.

Now we go to Universal vs. Disney dark rides. Simply put, Cat in the Hat sucks. It is boring, it has nothing in it besides paint and pictures, and tons of boredom. Compare this to Pooh, opened around the same time, and as you can see, Pooh wins.

Then as Scoop keeps saying, Disney has the buffer. The monorial. The TTC. Everything. Universal has a 6 story parking deck that throws out more advertisements than a DTV Disney movie, and then dumps you into a night-club district.

Yeah, Universal creative really had caught up.

 

[ChrisFL]

Originally posted by Testtrack321
Oh, so this is my thread. I'm that pivatal 'teen' group that Disney is aiming for now and people said Universal 'owns' already.

I can say, with extreme amount of confidence, that this statement is false. I have talked to many kids of differing backgrounds, ages, and opinions, and found that nearly ALL perfer Disney to Universal. But what gets them going to Universal is the coasters. Simple as that. They love Disney, the dark rides, the themeing, everything. But they only go to Universal for the coasters. They would stay at Disney if it had more big time thrill rides. Simple as that. And Disney knows that.

Now we go to Universal vs. Disney dark rides. Simply put, Cat in the Hat sucks. It is boring, it has nothing in it besides paint and pictures, and tons of boredom. Compare this to Pooh, opened around the same time, and as you can see, Pooh wins.

Then as Scoop keeps saying, Disney has the buffer. The monorial. The TTC. Everything. Universal has a 6 story parking deck that throws out more advertisements than a DTV Disney movie, and then dumps you into a night-club district.

Yeah, Universal creative really had caught up.

I also know a lot of teens who would disagree with you. There are a lot of comparisons on quality of rides which Universal Creative made better than Disney, and many have already been listed:

MIB vs. Buzz Lightyear
Bilge-Rat Barges vs. Kali River Rapids
Spiderman vs. Anything

Even the old E.T. ride is up to par with Peter Pan IMO.

Maybe when you rode the Cat in the Hat it had technical problems(assuming you actually did ride it), because, I have so much fun spinning it's not boring at all to me, and there is a lot of different elements to the ride, besides "paint and pictures".

But the trend is not favoring Disney if they keep coming up with mediocre attractions every few years.

The initial question, I think people are missing, is that Universal is quickly catching up to provide a good experience for all types of guests, and that has nothing to do with attendance figures.
Now if a certain park left a certain demographic completely disappointed when leaving, then that's an issue, not what the attendance figures are.

I mean, let's face it, MK opened in 1971, IOA opened in 1999, and people say IOA isn't as good, but to me only because it doesn't have 28 years of marketing behind it?

I'm going to use another movie analogy here. Let's say they decided to make a Titanic sequel and all the people that went to see it the first time and loved it, went back years later to see the sequel, but hated it. The ticket sales would be there, but, naturally, it would be really crazy to try to make a sequel on something like Titanic and expect people to like it.

That's what Disney is beginning to face, as the parks get lower and lower quality attractions replacing classics, not to mention all other aspects of the "experience" going down, people who don't know will still come until they realize that things aren't the way they used to be. If the trend continues, and more and more people get word of mouth and realize that there's "another game in town" then we'll keep seeing different trends in UO's favor. Maybe not right now, but in 5 to 10 years, it could be a very different story, if both resorts have 4 theme parks and several hotels.

 

[HauntedMansionFan]

Originally posted by pheneix
If you looked for any 2002 numbers from Theme Park Insider then it would have been one of my threads, since I supplied an unfinished list to the thread in the hopes that others would come along and round it out.

That being the case, I KNOW that the numbers that I posted there were the numbers that Raidermatt posted here, and not the numbers that you posted.

My bad, it wasn't from Theme Park Insider, it was from an article posted at Ultimate Thrill Ride Rollercoaster which was an article from Amusement Business. But isn't that where you got figures from to raidermatt? Hmmm, I will have to research a bit more, because if we both got the same thing from Amusement Business then perhaps the article was copies over incorrectly to the site I read. I'll check some more.

 

[HauntedMansionFan]

Originally posted by ChrisFL
Maybe when you rode the Cat in the Hat it had technical problems(assuming you actually did ride it), because, I have so much fun spinning it's not boring at all to me, and there is a lot of different elements to the ride, besides "paint and pictures".

You mean the shoddy animatronics? Or the fact that you can see the track that all of the characters move on?

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Originally posted by HauntedMansionFan
You mean the shoddy animatronics? Or the fact that you can see the track that all of the characters move on?

No more shoddy than Winnie the cardboard cutout. Personally I find CitH to be a real 'hunny' of a dark ride. Cat has tons more whimsical charm and character than the $1.98 Pooh-lite special.

 

[Bob O]

I would also agree that Cat in the Hat was done with more thought and care/creativity than Pooh. Now if we had the version from japan the results would be different.
As for teenagers, my son and his friends who have been to both wdw/usf enjoy both but MUCH perfer USF overall as a better experience. Some of it is the coasters,some of it is the movies they have seen and can relate to and alot of male teenagers arent excited at all by people in costumes that maybe the older generation/females/small kids go goofy over. The find much more humor/enjoyment in sponge bob and other cartoons on comedy central/nick than seeing a bunch of princess's running around now if they were dressed like hooters girls it would be different lol)

 

[crusader]

Cat has tons more whimsical charm and character than the $1.98 Pooh-lite special.

Excellent!

Regarding the coaster point. The demographics are wrong here. It is not just the male teens having a great time at IoA - it's alot of us.

But in all fairness WDW does have that seclusionary flare and will continue to sustain time. Even if UO does catch up - so what? Factor in the population growth and you have plenty of room for choice.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Strip everything away from WDW except for the MK. No resorts, no other venues, no other parks. Just the MK. Do the same for Universal. Strip it down to just IOA. Which park is going to get more one day visitors.

No question who wins here and I see your point. But how long does the notoriety last? How long before that ride count equalizes and the new kid doesn't see much of an attraction distinction between the two industries?

I’d like to take a different tack. Lets strip everything away INCLUDING the MK!! After all, that’s a Walt park. Even as neglected as it has become, with rides closed and no replacements, it still reeks of Walt. Now, just for fun, put another park into the mix. How does that park stack up to IOA? Even my beloved EPCOT is a little long in the tooth and somewhat neglected. But it still ain’t bad. A Card Walker/Ron Miller park and it still can give IOA a run for its money.

So let’s try another. Let’s say that Disney was nothing but the Studios. Now how is Disney doing compared to IOA?

OK. Now try AK. Nothing but AK vs. IOA. Pretty sad, isn’t it?

So my bottom line is that Walt had 'something' that Universal hasn't quite gotten yet. And even Walker/Miller could beat the heck out of the competition.

But to me at least, the current crew hasn't got a clue!! In fact it seems as though they've gone downhill, at a tremendous rate!!

In case you don't believe me, look at the sequence. The Studios, which may, just barely, be able to hold it’s own against IOA. Ak, a very clear LOSER. And lastly I point to their latest effort. Why DCA, of course!! What's next? Local "Disney ®" church carnivals!!

 

[HauntedMansionFan]

Originally posted by Spaceman Spiff
No more shoddy than Winnie the cardboard cutout. Personally I find CitH to be a real 'hunny' of a dark ride. Cat has tons more whimsical charm and character than the $1.98 Pooh-lite special.

I just think it is amusing that Universal didn't try to hide any of the tracks that the characters move on. Come on... when the piano "slides" down the stairs? Oh look... its going to hit us! Oh wait... it stops right at the end of that slot in the floor. Oh cool Thing 1 and Thing 2 are running around! Oh wait.... you can see the arm that carries them and the track they are moving on. As "cheap" as certain aspects of Pooh might be, at least Disney tries to cover up the "tech" work behind it. And for what its worth, the special effect at the beginning of the Pooh ride, the sequence where Winnie enters into the dream, blows anything out of the water that Cat has to offer.

 

[Jollymon]

I go to Disney. I do not go to US or IOA.

Wait, let me add one thing.

I have a three year old and a 1 year old.

I will continue to go to Disney for about 5 years.

At that point I will probably stop going to Disney altogether as my kids will prefer the thrill rides (based on the experiences of all of my friends with older age group whose kids would not be caught dead in any Disney park).

Bottom line, Disney needs a thrill ride park or they will loose relevance in the teen market.

Andrew

PS If it was up to me, I prefer a thrill park to silly dark rides with moving puppets and dolls. But these rides amaze my children so I will continue suffering through them...

 

[crusader]

Even my beloved EPCOT is a little long in the tooth and somewhat neglected. But it still ain’t bad. A Card Walker/Ron Miller park and it still can give IOA a run for its money.

No way. IoA will become the park the guests stay onsite at year after year and repeat visit. EPCOT becomes that one day "maybe" on occasion trip which will be easily cicumvented by a trek to SeaWorld instead.

So let’s try another. Let’s say that Disney was nothing but the Studios. Now how is Disney doing compared to IOA?

Tough call since US shares the motion picture themeing here. Both parks contain great rides with tremendous drawing power - But IOA leads.

So my bottom line is that Walt had 'something' that Universal hasn't quite gotten yet. And even Walker/Miller could beat the heck out of the competition.

No disagreement. The question is: have they caught up? And to that undoubtedly - NO! This should not be the main focus here given the varying magnitudes.

But look carefully at who is attending UO and you may see someone who strangely resembles a WDW visitor. You cannot ignore the fact that these rivals are drawing from the same base and will continue to do so. They don't have to be the industry leader to get our money, they simply have to provide entertainment.

 

[DisneyKidds]

The question is: have they caught up?

Thank you for repeating the question for our good Baron. Alas, it is for naught. It was indeed the Baron who said.............

I am in car #3 because the current management allowed Universal to catch up with them in every market segment!!

.............and inspired this very thread, yet he doesn't seem to want to discuss this statement any further .

 

[DC7800]

Originally posted by Jollymon
I will continue to go to Disney for about 5 years. At that point I will probably stop going to Disney altogether as my kids will prefer the thrill rides.......Bottom line, Disney needs a thrill ride park or they will loose relevance in the teen market. If it was up to me, I prefer a thrill park to silly dark rides with moving puppets and dolls. But these rides amaze my children so I will continue suffering through them...

It isn't that WDW needs a thrill park to stay relevant in the teen market (no Disney resort has ever had a thrill park, yet Disney parks have no comparison with those that do...), it's that WDW needs something (new) of interest to the teen and young adult market. If your only two choices are "silly dark rides with moving puppets" and thrill rides (coasters, etc), then of course most teens (and many adults) will choose the latter. But Disney isn't about (or, isn't supposed to be about) either of those two extremes. Disney attractions are for the whole family; rides that amaze both you and your children. Pirates is often thrown out as an example, and it is, but it's hardly alone. What's really needed are multiple new attractions, on the level of Pirates, that appeal to most every guest from age two to 102. This requires real talent, creativeity, and imagination (together with a hefty bank account) that used to a hallmark of Disney. Thrill rides are just the (relatively) cheap and easy (maybe lazy) solution, and that particular market really isn't one Disney should be competing in anyway.

Disney must answer the competition presented by IOA/ Six Flags-type parks, but should avoid competing on the same level (in other words, Disney should not lower itself to their level). Instead, answer "cheap thrills" with Disney magic - attractions which can only be found at Disney.

Remember also that most teens are touring the parks with their families, and may be found on attractions of all sorts. There are differing levels of splitting-up (by ride, park, etc), which is itself another whole debate, but you tend to find teens on Dumbo because a younger sibling likes it, and you will find them in The Hall of Presidents because their parents may prefer it. Everyone has preferences (note the MK presence of Space, Splash, and Big Thunder Mountains) including the teen group; trying to primarily appeal to one particular market segment alienates the remainder (consider what has happened to Future World).

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Sidetrack post to answer a sidetrack post...
... even though he thinks it goes to the original question!

I apologize to everyone who has to wade through this nonsense. I left out the ‘key’ word that gets you off the hook for every hyperbole and outlandish statement (to make a point) you can make. Kind of like the infamous “allegedly” gets the news people off the legal hook, there are other words that I will be sure to include for the sake of Mr. Kidds that will get me off the hook. Be sure I will include them, because I want my meaning to come through and not some legal technicality!!

So…

I am in car #3 because the current management allowed Universal to catch up with them in every market segment!!

Mr. Kidds. Why do you make us all go through this process? I ingnored it when the thread first started mainly because I thought you were merely having fun and it made for a good topic. But now, after page nine you bring it up again. And I think you’re serious about it!?!?!

I don’t think you’re dense enough to have missed my meaning, are you? Why is it that a little hyperbole or even (gasp!) a missing ‘virtually’ and you’re all over me!? Did you really miss the point of the post because I neglected to say 99%, or almost or virtually? In case you did, I’ll do it again.

The question was posed as to the reason I was in car number three. The entire answer is below (missing word to make Mr. Kidds get off my back is added in red):

I am in car #3 because the current management allowed Universal to catch up with them in virtually every market segment!! I’m in car #3 because although Disney certainly had (and I stress the word had) the resources and the talent to capture, and captivate Planogirl’s 4th grade child and snare that young mind to Disney forever, they chose instead to go after the fast buck. I am in car #3 because Disney’s current regime just doesn’t put forth the effort it takes to secure long term loyalty through exceeding expectations and simply WOWing them into submission.

Just because someone doesn’t like the pixie dust doesn’t mean you have to have a hissy fit and say Disney should build more dark rides, since that's what everyone really wants, and build more monorials, since everyone wants to ride those too.

And just for the record I have NEVER said that Disney needed more dark rides. The closest I ever came to a stance like that is saying that Disney is dangerously close to having too many “Adult” only and “Kid” only rides. Also, I never said they needed more monorails (although I personally don’t think it would hurt). What I want to see is innovative transportation. So innovative in fact, that if I could think of the concept, it isn’t nearly innovative enough!!! Does that make sense?

And I ask again Mr. Kidds. Does that make sense?

 

[HauntedMansionFan]

Originally posted by Jollymon

Bottom line, Disney needs a thrill ride park or they will loose relevance in the teen market.

Disney doesn't need to draw in the teen market, they have quite a significant chunk of demographics already. Me personally, I would prefer they did build a thrill park. Why? The very thing I dislike about IOA, I feel like I'm at the mall at home with a couple of roller coasters tossed in for good measure. I don't go on vacation to be surrounded by un-supervised, rowdy teenagers. I like to relax, walk around, look at the sights and scenery. Not see a group of teens running all over the place, acting rude and obnoxious, the 13 year olds that are in "love" and making out in every line ride.... etc....

I would prefer an Epcot in disaray then an IOA running at top speed.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Mr. Kidds. Why do you make us all go through this process?

Hey. 1,500 hits and 100+ posts. I'd hardly call that a waste of time. We have to have some fun and something to debate, don't we?

I ingnored it when the thread first started mainly because I thought you were merely having fun and it made for a good topic. But now, after page nine you bring it up again. And I think you’re serious about it!?!?!

I ddn't start the thread JUST for you. I did think it would make for interesting conversation and it has been. That's not to say I didn't want more from you. Yeah, I brought you up again. You made a statement - a pretty strong one. Now I am supposed to know what you MEANT to say. Say what you mean, or don't say it at all I always say. We should all have to stand behind what we actually say. Yes, I saw other element to your post on that other thread. But still, you said what you said. Now you say 'virtually'. Well, I'm not sure most would even agree with that. Care to elaborate on your reasoning? (btw - I'm sure you saw my winkie and know I was trying to draw you out - you are too easy. Notwithstanding, we do deserve to hear more of your reasoning behind statements many would not agree with - be it 'every' or 'virtually every' ).

And I ask again Mr. Kidds. Does that make sense?

Sure - you didn't mean what you said . Fair enough .

 

[Planogirl]

Originally posted by HauntedMansionFan
Disney doesn't need to draw in the teen market, they have quite a significant chunk of demographics already. Me personally, I would prefer they did build a thrill park. Why? The very thing I dislike about IOA, I feel like I'm at the mall at home with a couple of roller coasters tossed in for good measure. I don't go on vacation to be surrounded by un-supervised, rowdy teenagers. I like to relax, walk around, look at the sights and scenery. Not see a group of teens running all over the place, acting rude and obnoxious, the 13 year olds that are in "love" and making out in every line ride.... etc....

I would prefer an Epcot in disaray then an IOA running at top speed.

So do I understand correctly that you want to avoid the teenage market? Unfortunately, many of us travel with kids approaching that age or already in it. As for "un-supervised, rowdy teenagers", we were at the parks during the annual cheerleader onslaught and I never saw so many unsupervised kids. But they weren't rowdy and strangely enough, didn't bother us at all. However, they were for the most part at the Disney parks so be careful, VERY careful....

As for feeling like you're at the mall, if only we had such malls in our area. None have water rides or such theming or.... well, you get the point.

By the way, my fourth grader still loves WDW and hopefully always will but he's BORED with the place. He wants new experiences and new thrills and that to me is the tragedy we're facing. I'm fairly comfortable with the same old, same old even if it is shrinking a bit but kids seems to often want something new as they grow and Disney has quit being that something new. (Even though we did enjoy the new mouse ride at AK as tacky as it is.)

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

And I ask again Mr. Kidds. Does that make sense?

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
Sure - you didn't mean what you said . Fair enough .

I don't care how many smilies and twirling heads you use. Is that really all you got out of it? It sure is the impression you give. Or perhaps a good quip coupled with smilies is all you want?

OK! I'll play!! Just so I have it right I'll lay out a template:

{Fill in with Mr. Kidds type quip - Or NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE}


Gosh!! That was fun!!!


Oops!! I forgot already!! I meant:


Gosh!! That was fun!!!