Interesting read on 20 new things coming to WDW by 2017

[mvk]

How could they not be? Cut, cut, cut those cost and raise, raise, raise those prices will of course increase your profits by leaps and bounds.

How much more record profits could they be generating if they took the parks seriously?

To me it appears they are taking a short term look at WDW, rake in the record profits now while they can, but at some point they ARE going to have spend massive amounts of money at WDW. I don't know if thats, 5, 10, or 20 years from now, but they can not continue operating the way they are.

They are spending massive amounts of money at WDW.

In about a 7 year window they will have New Fantasyland, NextGen, Pandora, and Disney Springs. That is 2 large expansions, a huge overhaul, and a huge infrastructure project. I'm not sure how much more money you want them to spend.

NextGen is the exact opposite of short term look. It's a loss in the short term money-wise, but expected to be a major plus in the long run.

 

[ChipnDale79]

They are spending massive amounts of money at WDW.

In about a 7 year window they will have New Fantasyland, NextGen, Pandora, and Disney Springs. That is 2 large expansions, a huge overhaul, and a huge infrastructure project. I'm not sure how much more money you want them to spend.

NextGen is the exact opposite of short term look. It's a loss in the short term money-wise, but expected to be a major plus in the long run.

I don't know about you, but products like NextGen don't draw me to parks. In fact this specific product nearly caused us to cancel our trip that's coming up in 3 weeks. Not to start another topic, but because of this one product, we spent an additional 3 hours on the phone with Disney because their product wasn't working correctly, we were extremely close to canceling and going elsewhere this year.

Products like Harry Potter and Avatarland most certainly do draw my attention though.

I want money to spent on attractions at parks, I don't care about shopping areas and infrastructure technologies. Are those things cool? They without a doubt are, but those aren't the things that make me book a trip to Central Florida.

 

[rteetz]

I think I'm one of the few that is really excited to see what they do with Avatarland, I think they are going to do an amazing job. I'm still keeping my fingers crossed about Star Wars and DHS.......

I am also very excited about avatar yeah the movie wasn't great but from the renderings and what imagineering and James Cameron are capable of I think it could be amazing.

 

[rteetz]

I don't know about you, but products like NextGen don't draw me to parks. In fact this specific product nearly caused us to cancel our trip that's coming up in 3 weeks. Not to start another topic, but because of this one product, we spent an additional 3 hours on the phone with Disney because their product wasn't working correctly, we were extremely close to canceling and going elsewhere this year. Products like Harry Potter and Avatarland most certainly do draw my attention though. I want money to spent on attractions at parks, I don't care about shopping areas and infrastructure technologies. Are those things cool? They without a doubt are, but those aren't the things that make me book a trip to Central Florida.

Next gen isn't necessarily supposed to draw you in its supposed to lock you in. Disney doesn't want you to go else where they want you to stay right in WDW. For Disney the data they can collect from this is substantial it's a home run for Disney and I wouldn't be surprised if other parks develop something similar down the road. Disney needs the shopping and infrastructure to build upon and make new attractions if you just have a bunch of rides it's basically six flags. I have always loved Disney because everything has a theme everything makes you feel like your in that place if it were real. Universal has gotten better the last fee year but they still have just a bunch of roller coasters with very little theming.

 

[tjkraz]

How much more record profits could they be generating if they took the parks seriously?

I doubt it's that simple. The "I'm not going back to WDW because they cut Streetmosphere performers and PUSH is no longer appearing" contingent isn't large enough to move the needle.

I'm not advocating or endorsing specific cuts. But realistically, I don't think you can make the blanket argument that profits would increase if Disney spent more.

NextGen has been a huge investment, and we could certainly spend a lot of time debating why / how it ended up costing over $1 billion. Still, it's a system which will give WDW a technological leg up on other theme park operations for many years to come. And I'm not even talking about FP+. The "fun factor" of getting a customized wristband is very real for millions of guests. Beyond that, we're talking free wifi, mobile and web apps with valuable realtime data, tap-to-enter, tap-to-pay, interactive elements like Test Track vehicle design, PhotoPass, etc.

Individually these components may not sound like much but collectively, it's a system other theme park operations cannot compete with...and would take years to catch up.

 

[Disneychick75]

Well, they are reporting record profits pretty much every single year.

They are spending massive amounts of money at WDW.

In about a 7 year window they will have New Fantasyland, NextGen, Pandora, and Disney Springs. That is 2 large expansions, a huge overhaul, and a huge infrastructure project. I'm not sure how much more money you want them to spend.

NextGen is the exact opposite of short term look. It's a loss in the short term money-wise, but expected to be a major plus in the long run.

New Fantasyland- strike
NextGen- strike
Disney Springs - remains to be seen
Avatar land- same

Next gen isn't necessarily supposed to draw you in its supposed to lock you in. Disney doesn't want you to go else where they want you to stay right in WDW. For Disney the data they can collect from this is substantial it's a home run for Disney and I wouldn't be surprised if other parks develop something similar down the road. Disney needs the shopping and infrastructure to build upon and make new attractions if you just have a bunch of rides it's basically six flags. I have always loved Disney because everything has a theme everything makes you feel like your in that place if it were real. Universal has gotten better the last fee year but they still have just a bunch of roller coasters with very little theming.

Which Uni coasters have very little theming? Should Uni maybe build a big roller coaster in a huge mountain with a yeti that has never worked. Oh wait, Disney already did that.

 

[rteetz]

New Fantasyland- strike NextGen- strike Disney Springs - remains to be seen Avatar land- same Which Uni coasters have very little theming? Should Uni maybe build a big roller coaster in a huge mountain with a yeti that has never worked. Oh wait, Disney already did that.

The yeti worked at one point and I would rather have a mountain than a bunch of metal. But as for the coaster I'm talking about the rip rocket thing with the music, and those two "Harry potter" coaster that used to race each other when potter opened all they did was rename them. I think Everest is quite good when it comes to theming I'm not saying universal is bad but Disney will never just put up a metal coaster like six flags. Im also confused by your strikes? What is wrong with NFL? As for next gen it's not necessarily supposed to be the best thing ever for guests like it it the best thing ever for Disney.

 

[ChipnDale79]

I'm not advocating or endorsing specific cuts. But realistically, I don't think you can make the blanket argument that profits would increase if Disney spent more.

Flip side of that, you can't make the blanket statement that not spending money won't increase profits either. Neither one of us know the answer to that, we just hold different opinions on the subject.

I hold the opinion that if Disney had more "fresh and "new" attractions, people would come to the parks more often.

 

[Donut23]

I don't think WDW is necessarily outdated but the comparison to Tokyo Disneyland is bad because Disney doesn't own Tokyo Disneyland. The oriental company leases the characters from Disney and does an amazing job with their two parks. The mine train isn't really forever delayed either, that area was originally supposed to be many other things than Disney realized we need another ride they put together the mine train and said spring 2014 when it opens this May that is spring 2014 it's not really delayed.[/QUOTE




I can see how you could be confused about the Mine Train. When it was first announced there were design troubles. Possible torque troubles with the swinging rail cars so construction dates were continually pushed back. Eventually they gave themselves a very long lead time and announced the Spring 2014 date.


As far as comparing a Disney park to a Disney park as unfair? Oh come on. You guys give me the giggles! WDW is constantly compared to US, Sea World, 6 Flags. Heck, there are comparisons in this very thread. Ownership has little merit in this. It's Apples to Apples.

Not convinced with the Mine Train example? Try this one, it's totally convincing, sadly.

Scoot on over to You Tube.

Take a look at poor 'ole Main Street Electrical Parade. I think we can all agree Disney has had more than enough time and available $$$$$ to bring this up to state of the art.

Now (grab a hanky, comparison for this one is tough) take a look at Toyko Disney Dreamlight Parade. Aw shucks, the Genie float alone knocks our Main Street Electrical Parade out of the water!

Even if you don't want to compare and you want to see an AMAZING nighttime Disney parade, take a peek. It is truly a magical parade.

 

[rteetz]

I'm not confused about the mine train I know it had problems and it wasn't on the original new fantasyland plans. People act like it's been delayed for a year or longer. It may have been delayed a little bit but not a lot.

WDW is solely owned by Disney they have all the say to what's going into WDW. The oriental company is the majority owner of Tokyo Disneyland and they work with Disney on adding things but a lot of it comes straight from the oriental company not necessarily Disney. I have seen the dream light parade and I agree blows MSEP out of the water.

I can't wait to ride the mine train I know it will be great and I truly hope it is for Disney.

 

[sheetz]

I think WDW has gotten so big that its attendance patterns more closely track the overall economy than the building of new attractions. Whether they add stuff or take away stuff attendance doesn't seem to be affected much.

 

[Bob Roberts]

I find it so funny on here how so many feel that Disney could do no wrong.

This is not the same feel good company that everyone grew up loving. Profit, profit, and again profit is all they care about. Any sense of pride in the company is long gone especially when it comes to WDW.

Now if all I cared about was profit, why in the World would I want to invest my capital into new attractions? There is no guarantee on any return on the money, and things are going just fine the way they are.

Disney (due to their good name from the past) can get away with doing as minimal as possible in WDW and the people still come in droves. The economy is in tank, they still come, purchasing power of the dollar is weaker then ever, they still come, increase ticket prices and rooms every month, they still come. The Disney Exec's must thank all the good people in Washington and Wall Street for the abundance of credit available. And we the people are totally seeing the benefits here of an economy based on debt instead of production and growth, its doing great wonders for the country!!!!!! Hello Detroit city!!!!!

 

[tjkraz]

Flip side of that, you can't make the blanket statement that not spending money won't increase profits either. Neither one of us know the answer to that, we just hold different opinions on the subject.

I hold the opinion that if Disney had more "fresh and "new" attractions, people would come to the parks more often.

Fortunately we aren't writing the checks for those expansions.

With any new construction, operating costs have to be taken into account along with initial construction. Just doing some back-of-a-napkin math, 20 Cast Members operating an attraction 12 hours per day for 365 days / year probably costs Disney in the neighborhood of $1.5 - 2 million annually (wage, benefits, taxes, unemployment, etc.) Utilities and other operating costs have to be factored in. Maintenance staff, parts, paint, landscaping, periodic extensive refurbishments...everything required to keep the attraction and queue in working order. Pathways, restrooms and other facilities associated with the attraction need to be cleaned and maintained.

And then there's the construction itself. A $100 M attraction amortized over 20 years "costs" $5 million per year. If the construction is financed, include interest. If company pays cash, include some calculation for interest or lost opportunity cost.

It may "cost" WDW around $10 million per year just to add that $100M attraction to one of its parks.

If so, in order to come out ahead that park needs to at least $10M annually worth of new business. And by "new business", I mean people who absolutely, positively would not have otherwise visited without the presence of that attraction.

Before you go sifting through attendance records, keep a few things in mind:

1) Most guests pay far less than the single day admission prices so you can't just take $10M, divide by $100 and conclude that 100,000 additional guests per year would cover the new attraction.

2) Annual Passholders don't pay any incremental fee for their park visits. A pass holder may double his/her visits to a given park due to the existence of a new attraction but Disney doesn't earn any extra admission dollars from those added visits.

3) You have to filter out organic growth. From '11 to '12 DAK added 200K guests without any noteworthy park addition. Even if attendance rose by 500K in the first full year after Everest opened, chances are some of those people would have been added even without Everest.

Occam's Razor states that the simplest solution is often the most accurate one. In this case, seems reasonable to conclude that Disney isn't pouring more dollars into WDW because they don't project profitable return on those investments.

If Disney could spend $10M annually to earn $15M or $20M, they would jump on the opportunity.

 

[rteetz]

I find it so funny on here how so many feel that Disney could do no wrong. This is not the same feel good company that everyone grew up loving. Profit, profit, and again profit is all they care about. Any sense of pride in the company is long gone especially when it comes to WDW. Now if all I cared about was profit, why in the World would I want to invest my capital into new attractions? There is no guarantee on any return on the money, and things are going just fine the way they are. Disney (due to their good name from the past) can get away with doing as minimal as possible in WDW and the people still come in droves. The economy is in tank, they still come, purchasing power of the dollar is weaker then ever, they still come, increase ticket prices and rooms every month, they still come. The Disney Exec's must thank all the good people in Washington and Wall Street for the abundance of credit available. And we the people are totally seeing the benefits here of an economy based on debt instead of production and growth, its doing wonders for the country!!!!!! Hello Detroit city!!!!!

I agree Disney is all about profit and that company pride is diminishing. They have cut down job training (traditions) a lot over the last decade and a ton of the people that now work in WDW are college program kids. Those kids don't get paid much therefore Disney not having to pay them much means more money for them.

 

[ChipnDale79]

Fortunately we aren't writing the checks for those expansions.

With any new construction, operating costs have to be taken into account along with initial construction. Just doing some back-of-a-napkin math, 20 Cast Members operating an attraction 12 hours per day for 365 days / year probably costs Disney in the neighborhood of $1.5 - 2 million annually (wage, benefits, taxes, unemployment, etc.) Utilities and other operating costs have to be factored in. Maintenance staff, parts, paint, landscaping, periodic extensive refurbishments...everything required to keep the attraction and queue in working order. Pathways, restrooms and other facilities associated with the attraction need to be cleaned and maintained.

And then there's the construction itself. A $100 M attraction amortized over 20 years "costs" $5 million per year. If the construction is financed, include interest. If company pays cash, include some calculation for interest or lost opportunity cost.

It may "cost" WDW around $10 million per year just to add that $100M attraction to one of its parks.

If so, in order to come out ahead that park needs to at least $10M annually worth of new business. And by "new business", I mean people who absolutely, positively would not have otherwise visited without the presence of that attraction.

Before you go sifting through attendance records, keep a few things in mind:

1) Most guests pay far less than the single day admission prices so you can't just take $10M, divide by $100 and conclude that 100,000 additional guests per year would cover the new attraction.

2) Annual Passholders don't pay any incremental fee for their park visits. A pass holder may double his/her visits to a given park due to the existence of a new attraction but Disney doesn't earn any extra admission dollars from those added visits.

3) You have to filter out organic growth. From '11 to '12 DAK added 200K guests without any noteworthy park addition. Even if attendance rose by 500K in the first full year after Everest opened, chances are some of those people would have been added even without Everest.

Occam's Razor states that the simplest solution is often the most accurate one. In this case, seems reasonable to conclude that Disney isn't pouring more dollars into WDW because they don't project profitable return on those investments.

If Disney could spend $10M annually to earn $15M or $20M, they would jump on the opportunity.

I don't need a lessen on fiances or how things are paid for by you. No matter how much we think we know, neither one of us know Disney's true cost for anything.

I'm stating that I believe short term what disney is doing is just fine. Without the investment of new attractions, and I mean more than one every 5 years, then it they are taking a large risk of getting stale over time and hurting growth and profit over the long term. Which I do believe is a problem.

The whole charade of numbers you just tossed out, imagine what it would be if they allowed their parks to get stale over a 5,10, 20 year time frame? Many are already arguing that some parks are already there or very close to being there. Now how long does it take for Disney to figure that out, and more importantly how long does it take for the public to say enough is enough? Neither one of us know the answer to that......


If Disney waits to long to add attractions they are going to get stuck with overall park redos like California Adventure. So pay for attractions as you grow and add to your parks, or pay for full redo of parks in the future? I don't care what company it is, if they rest on their laurels, it catches up to them at some point. When is that? I don't pretend to know when that will happen for Disney.

Make no bones about it, Iger and his team do not care what happens 20 years from now, they will be long gone by then. They care about what happens now, that's how they get paid.

 

[rteetz]

I don't need a lessen on fiances or how things are paid for by you. No matter how much we think we know, neither one of us know Disney's true cost for anything. I'm stating that I believe short term what disney is doing is just fine. Without the investment of new attractions, and I mean more than one every 5 years, then it they are taking a large risk of getting stale over time and hurting growth and profit over the long term. Which I do believe is a problem. The whole charade of numbers you just tossed out, imagine what it would be if they allowed their parks to get stale over a 5,10, 20 year time frame? Many are already arguing that some parks are already there or very close to being there. Now how long does it take for Disney to figure that out, and more importantly how long does it take for the public to say enough is enough? Neither one of us know the answer to that...... If Disney waits to long to add attractions they are going to get stuck with overall park redos like California Adventure. So pay for attractions as you grow and add to your parks, or pay for full redo of parks in the future? I don't care what company it is, if they rest on their laurels, it catches up to them at some point. When is that? I don't pretend to know when that will happen for Disney. Make no bones about it, Iger and his team do not care what happens 20 years from now, they will be long gone by then. They care about what happens now, that's how they get paid.

I agree Iger is just smooth sailing the end of his contract he doesn't care about the 20 year plan.

 

[mvk]

Make no bones about it, Iger and his team do not care what happens 20 years from now, they will be long gone by then. They care about what happens now, that's how they get paid.

See, I don't think you can say this while at the same time realizing that NextGen cost over $1B and they really aren't going to be able to benefit financially from it for a few years, probably after Iger is gone.

If they only cared about what happens now, they would've used that $1B+ on attractions that would've given them a quick bump then gone back to same growth pattern, like at IOA. Or they would've done nothing with the $1B.

The projects that they are working on now, none of them are going to be complete by the time Iger is gone. And these are huge projects. I'm not sure how you can state he doesn't care what happens after he is gone when the reality is, what they are currently doing is setting up the next CEO to look really good.

 

[ChipnDale79]

See, I don't think you can say this while at the same time realizing that NextGen cost over $1B and they really aren't going to be able to benefit financially from it for a few years, probably after Iger is gone.

If they only cared about what happens now, they would've used that $1B+ on attractions that would've given them a quick bump then gone back to same growth pattern, like at IOA. Or they would've done nothing with the $1B.

The projects that they are working on now, none of them are going to be complete by the time Iger is gone. And these are huge projects. I'm not sure how you can state he doesn't care what happens after he is gone when the reality is, what they are currently doing is setting up the next CEO to look really good.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, NextGen doesnt get me in the car and drive to Disney, in fact its come close to keeping me away. Don't get me wrong, I really really like a lot of the aspects of it, but when I've had to deal with issues after issues, it really made us consider staying home. In fact it took a call from Guest Relations to keep our reservations.

New attractions get me in the car and on the road to Disney.

I have a different opinion than you do on Iger and the future of WDW, that could very well change if he green lights Star Wars at DHS.

 

[tjkraz]

I'm stating that I believe short term what disney is doing is just fine. Without the investment of new attractions, and I mean more than one every 5 years, then it they are taking a large risk of getting stale over time and hurting growth and profit over the long term. Which I do believe is a problem.

I realize that Disney isn't adding things at a pace which would satisfy many die-hard fans but do we really need to recap the last 5 years? Or the 5 years before that?

The whole charade of numbers you just tossed out, imagine what it would be if they allowed their parks to get stale over a 5,10, 20 year time frame?

Are you saying that anonymous posters on Disney fan websites are claiming (ostensibly, without proof to back it up) that DIS needs to spend more or risk losing their dollars???

I'm shocked. Shocked!!

Thing is, hotel occupancy is trending along the same lines as prior periods, park attendance is still growing and prices are rising. Setting aside personal interpretations of "right" and "wrong", what Disney's doing is working.

And from a business standpoint, they have no reason to act until there are concrete signs of trouble. Better to hold off on those investments until they are needed.

...how long does it take for the public to say enough is enough?

Depends on whether you're referring to the card-carrying theme park fanatic--which are relatively small in number--or the family next door taking their 3 year old for his first visit to the Magic Kingdom.

If Disney waits to long to add attractions they are going to get stuck with overall park redos like California Adventure.

DCA regularly drew 1/3 the attendance of another park located 300' away. Investing in DCA was a no-brainer. The growth potential was/is enormous.

There is no Walt Disney World parallel for DCA.

 

[rteetz]

I realize that Disney isn't adding things at a pace which would satisfy many die-hard fans but do we really need to recap the last 5 years? Or the 5 years before that? Are you saying that anonymous posters on Disney fan websites are claiming (ostensibly, without proof to back it up) that DIS needs to spend more or risk losing their dollars??? I'm shocked. Shocked!! Thing is, hotel occupancy is trending along the same lines as prior periods, park attendance is still growing and prices are rising. Setting aside personal interpretations of "right" and "wrong", what Disney's doing is working. And from a business standpoint, they have no reason to act until there are concrete signs of trouble. Better to hold off on those investments until they are needed. Depends on whether you're referring to the card-carrying theme park fanatic--which are relatively small in number--or the family next door taking their 3 year old for his first visit to the Magic Kingdom. DCA regularly drew 1/3 the attendance of another park located 300' away. Investing in DCA was a no-brainer. The growth potential was/is enormous. There is no Walt Disney World parallel for DCA.

I agree that there really isn't a WDW parallel for DCA but many would say DHS because it has the lowest of the four parks attendance and it's just not as good as it used to be. I think DHS could really benefit from a DCA style make over but I don't necessarily think it needs it. What it does need tho is something large and new like Star Wars land or something.