Is Disney World becoming a shell of its former self?

[DoingDisney]

I said for ME. Not You. So it does hold. Because that is why I didn't like it as much as I do Disney. And why I won't be wasting My money going back anytime soon. I know plenty of people who love it there. Just not for us.

I think they point he was trying to make was, you could argue anything in particular makes disney better than universal, insofar as the same isn't true for both, otherwise the argument doesn't hold.

For instance you could say you just like the "feel" of disney more. Great, totally get it, its a personal issue thing.

But if you said, "I had to pay to get into Universal, didn't like that, I will be going to disney world instead in the future" ... well, you have to pay to get into Disney World too, so the argument doesn't hold. You can make it all you want, but its not convincing and seems without basis.

Arguing that Uni has rides that are similar, when we all know Disney uses the exact same ride system over and over, has rides that are pretty darn identical - well that argument doesn't hold.

Its like saying I didn't like that the sky was blue at Universal, wont be wasting my money there, I will be spending time at Disney world instead.

 

[old lady]

They aren't even trying to compete.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/investing/2016/01/02/disney-world-cant-phone-it-in-again-in-2016/

 

[3DisneyFanz]

I'm really pulling for SeaWorld. Keeping Orcas is just plain wrong and the sooner they get rid of them the better. Keeping dolphins is also somewhat wrong given the size of the enclosures but you might make a case that dolphins can be reasonably happy in captivity if they can socialize with other dolphins and people a lot, and get lots of exercise. The sharks, manatees, seals, penguins and stingrays seem perfectly happy to me and I have no more problem with keeping them than I have with elephants and rhinos. The polar bear looked a bit depressed though.

Even if they had no animals, SeaWorld could potentially be a great, water-based park. Look at Disney Sea in Tokyo. It's just a matter of adding sufficiently interesting, all-ages rides and keeping the overall ambiance warm and inviting. But personally I would say, keep the animals that are reasonable to keep and use the conservation angle as your emotional center, like an aquatic DAK.

For me if you're going to be against one animal in captivity you have to be against them all. No animal in a zoo, DAK, Sea World, etc. is in the same environment they'd be in the wild.

I really love seeing the PETA protesters here complaining about the circus with their dogs on leashes. Dogs and Cats were wild animals and keeping a dog in an apartment isn't much different than a lion in a cage.

 

[jade1]

Just had to chime in. We got back from 10 days at WDW with 1 day at Universal in November. We loved it .

Exact same, one great day, but 1 out of 10 is enough. And we still do a WDW park that same night, night shows and FP+, can't beat it.

 

[DoingDisney]

Entering it now but will likely be over quick. I mean, they're opening three new lands (Avatar, Toy Story, Star Wars), a new night show (Rivers of Light), plus the Frozen ride over the next 3-5 years. That is gling to bring in people in waves, whether the people here like it or not.

I don't think anyone here wouldn't like it, in fact I think most people here would love it, even the people who have been disappointed with disney in the last while would, this is generally what they are looking for, a real investment in attractions instead of investment on squeezing more out of the guests while offering less.

Will be interesting to see how robust the improvements are, I am very much hoping the live up the the hype Disney is going to surround them with and really shatter peoples expectations, but for me NFL was a bit of a let down, so we will let time tell.

 

[rteetz]

They aren't even trying to compete.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/investing/2016/01/02/disney-world-cant-phone-it-in-again-in-2016/

Because they don't have too...

That's the unfortunate truth. Disney isn't very afraid of universal yet.

 

[rteetz]

For me if you're going to be against one animal in captivity you have to be against them all. No animal in a zoo, DAK, Sea World, etc. is in the same environment they'd be in the wild.

I really love seeing the PETA protesters here complaining about the circus with their dogs on leashes. Dogs and Cats were wild animals and keeping a dog in an apartment isn't much different than a lion in a cage.

I kind of agree with this. PETA isn't going to be happy until all animals are out of captivity but that will never happen. I think PETA looked and found SeaWorld the most vulnerable to attack. A blackfish type move wouldn't have worked on Disney.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

They aren't even trying to compete.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/investing/2016/01/02/disney-world-cant-phone-it-in-again-in-2016/

Motley fool has been out In front of the criticism parade of "leadership"
In wdw for a long time now.

The problem is they are starting to gravitate toward "correct". It think that even with record attendance, wdw is gonna lose another 2-3 points of share of the Orlando market this year.

That equates to billions they really can't afford with the other issues on their plate.

Their complacency could actually drive people away:
"You have the biggest film in American history - which was in development for 3+ years...and you've got nothing for my kids to ride?"

No? "These things take time..." Is good enough forever?

After they charge you a premium price that they're trying to hatch for a date in large swaths of the calendar...like "June" or "52 Saturdays a year"

 

[DDLand]

Their complacency could actually drive people away:
"You have the biggest film in American history - which was in development for 3+ years...and you've got nothing for my kids to ride?"

I think there is a bit of a disconnect with individuals here and just about everyone else. There is no expectation that SW attractions have to be open now. They're coming. The first Harry Potter movie came out in 2001. It was nine years before the first Harry Potter Land opened. The idea something has to be open soon is something we the fan community created.

Most people probably think about Walt Disney World maybe a handful of times a year. For us who think about it nearly daily it may appear things are progressing slowly. For someone who checks in on WDW in the summer, and doesn't seek more information until January, things appear to move more quickly. It's just a matter of how often you seek the information.

I've decided that even more then adding new lands, Disney needs to maintain what they have. Attraction rosters that are already in good shape need to stay that way. Attractions that aren't up to standards need to be updated. Most guests don't care about what's in the pipeline. They're not going to judge their vacation by what isn't there. They are going to judge their vacation by the condition of the attractions here and now. Attractions like Peter Pan's Flight, Buzz Lightyear SRS, and Winnie the Pooh which are incredibly popular- moving huge numbers of people through- but poorly maintained are what I'm more concerned about.

Sure a few people may be upset by a lack of SW attractions, but I'm less worried about that when I know tens of thousands of guests are going on a ride with Peter Pan's Arm broken (let's just say the skin or cover was ripped). That to me is more problematic then what's coming or not there yet.

As of January 4th 2016, Disney World isn't screwed.

 

[mom2rtk]

I've decided that even more then adding new lands, Disney needs to maintain what they have. Attraction rosters that are already in good shape need to stay that way. Attractions that aren't up to standards need to be updated. Most guests don't care about what's in the pipeline. They're not going to judge their vacation by what isn't there. They are going to judge their vacation by the condition of the attractions here and now. Attractions like Peter Pan's Flight, Buzz Lightyear SRS, and Winnie the Pooh which are incredibly popular- moving huge numbers of people through- but poorly maintained are what I'm more concerned about.

I could consider that line of thinking if Disney agreed to cap their attendance and not allow (and pursue) greater attendance every year. As long as more bodies are coming in the gates, they need more capacity in what they offer...... just to maintain current ride to guest ratios.

 

[DDLand]

I could consider that line of thinking if Disney agreed to cap their attendance and not allow (and pursue) greater attendance every year. As long as more bodies are coming in the gates, they need more capacity in what they offer...... just to maintain current ride to guest ratios.

It appears they're actually trying to do that to some extent with tiered pricing. We'll see how that works out.

Still I feel like me as guest and just about any other guest would be willing to wait longer for attractions, without complaining, if they were immaculately maintained and all up to a certain show quality. Attractions like It's a Small World, which are falling apart, are embarrassing.

Though I agree whole heartedly with your opinion on new attractions. Before going recently, I was personally of the mindset that the MK needed the least new investment of all the parks. I've changed my tune. Their most popular park needs the most attention. A major new E Ticket would do wonders.

 

[mom2rtk]

It appears they're actually trying to do that to some extent with tiered pricing. We'll see how that works out.

Still I feel like me as guest and just about any other guest would be willing to wait longer for attractions, without complaining, if they were immaculately maintained and all up to a certain show quality. Attractions like It's a Small World, which are falling apart, are embarrassing.

Though I agree whole heartedly with your opinion on new attractions. Before going recently, I was personally of the mindset that the MK needed the least new investment of all the parks. I've changed my tune. Their most popular park needs the most attention. A major new E Ticket would do wonders.

I don't think that's where they're heading with tiered pricing. Instead of limiting attendance, I think they're just trying to maximize revenue from whatever attendance they have. They will continue to run ads, run promotions, and pay bonuses to staff that exceed growth projections.

 

[kbelle8995]

I think it's just me but I think if something's at least five years in the future let me tell you it's a heck of a lot harder to get excited.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Somebody here has forgotten that Disney has been spinning PR since 1955 to place themselves on a pedestal to justify their prices...intentionally creating higher expectations...

They still own the consequences of that now.

Did anybody expect the universal parks to put in Harry Potter at ANY point until the deal was
Announced?
Nope.
Did many if not most of the business watchers and fans expect Disney to unleash its fleet of "magical artisans and engineers" on Star Wars the minute they bought it - when the last whips of Sandy were still chewing on New England and the maritimes?

Oh...I think we have a different ballgame there.

 

[DDLand]

I don't think that's where they're heading with tiered pricing. Instead of limiting attendance, I think they're just trying to maximize revenue from whatever attendance they have. They will continue to run ads, run promotions, and pay bonuses to staff that exceed growth projections.

I think they honestly realize that they have a bit of a problem with crowding. They do want to maximize park attendance. That's a given. People here don't seem to be realizing that it is a balance. Walt Disney World cannot continue cramming more and more people into the parks without a thoughtful look at operations. Strategies like New Fantasyland, MyMagic+, and tiered pricing are about finding the balance between guest comfort and ever increasing attendance. Tiered pricing will have an effect at driving away some guests to other times of the year. I just don't think all guests can ignore the cost incentive. This is about evenness and consistency. Sure they'll make more money, but at the same time you'll have your less crowded park. It's a win win.

I think it's just me but I think if something's at least five years in the future let me tell you it's a heck of a lot harder to get excited.

Are you supposed to be excited about an addition five years from now? Disney has several new offerings opening this year at DAK and Epcot. Next year holds the promise of Avatar and likely Toy Story. Disney isn't trying to sell you a product that's opening in 5 years, they're selling you something today.

Somebody here has forgotten that Disney has been spinning PR since 1955 to place themselves on a pedestal to justify their prices...intentionally creating higher expectations...

They still own the consequences of that now.

Did anybody expect the universal parks to put in Harry Potter at ANY point until the deal was
Announced?
Nope.
Did many if not most of the business watchers and fans expect Disney to unleash its fleet of "magical artisans and engineers" on Star Wars the minute they bought it - when the last whips of Sandy were still chewing on New England and the maritimes?

Oh...I think we have a different ballgame there.

Except we, the people who watch Disney, are not the majority. Guests would be delighted by a SW Land whether it opened last year or in a decade (Of course judging by how fans have taken onto Rey, Poe, and Finn perhaps Iger was onto something with his delaying of SW Land). I doubt many guests walk away from a vacation at WDW feeling dejected because there's no SW Land. More likely their criticism would have something to do with quality of service and attractions, crowds, and wait times.

Those are what matter most from day to day. That's what ultimately will decide whether Disney World is screwed.

 

[mom2rtk]

I think they honestly realize that they have a bit of a problem with crowding. They do want to maximize park attendance. That's a given. People here don't seem to be realizing that it is a balance. Walt Disney World cannot continue cramming more and more people into the parks without a thoughtful look at operations. Strategies like New Fantasyland, MyMagic+, and tiered pricing are about finding the balance between guest comfort and ever increasing attendance. Tiered pricing will have an effect at driving away some guests to other times of the year. I just don't think all guests can ignore the cost incentive. This is about evenness and consistency. Sure they'll make more money, but at the same time you'll have your less crowded park. It's a win win.

It appears that all options were on the table except adding new attractions at a pace to keep up with attendance growth.

 

[DDLand]

It appears that all options were on the table except adding new attractions at a pace to keep up with attendance growth.

This all goes back to balance. Adding attractions may seem like the obvious choice for several reasons. However, it's not that simple.

While it's true Disney could start building a huge wave of attractions at MK, that doesn't mean they should. Sure reduced wait times may result, but key guest corridors would remain packed The other offerings and infrastructure would be strained. Adding more attractions to MK would also mean that they have more to maintain park wide. If Disney has been struggling to maintain its current roster, why then would we want them to expand it significantly spreading operations budgets more thinly around? I'd rather they maintain what they have and add value to their existing attractions than add more (that doesn't go for DAK and DHS where more clearly needs to be added). Finally adding attractions can "backfire." They can outdraw their added capacity gains. Instead of making it more comfortable for everyone they just make everything worse crowds wise.

That's not to say there isn't a place for new attractions at MK. I think they should be the highest priority. It's just overlooking the importance of the things I mentioned above and things like the new central plaza and bypass isn't fair either. Balance is key.

 

[mom2rtk]

This all goes back to balance. Adding attractions may seem like the obvious choice for several reasons. However, it's not that simple.

While it's true Disney could start building a huge wave of attractions at MK, that doesn't mean they should. Sure reduced wait times may result, but key guest corridors would remain packed The other offerings and infrastructure would be strained. Adding more attractions to MK would also mean that they have more to maintain park wide. If Disney has been struggling to maintain its current roster, why then would we want them to expand it significantly spreading operations budgets more thinly around? I'd rather they maintain what they have and add value to their existing attractions than add more (that doesn't go for DAK and DHS where more clearly needs to be added). Finally adding attractions can "backfire." They can outdraw their added capacity gains. Instead of making it more comfortable for everyone they just make everything worse crowds wise.

That's not to say there isn't a place for new attractions at MK. I think they should be the highest priority. It's just overlooking the importance of the things I mentioned above and things like the new central plaza and bypass isn't fair either. Balance is key.

Why do you think Disney has been struggling to maintain its current roster? Did they run out of money?

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Except we, the people who watch Disney, are not the majority. Guests would be delighted by a SW Land whether it opened last year or in a decade (Of course judging by how fans have taken onto Rey, Poe, and Finn perhaps Iger was onto something with his delaying of SW Land). I doubt many guests walk away from a vacation at WDW feeling dejected because there's no SW Land. More likely their criticism would have something to do with quality of service and attractions, crowds, and wait times.

Those are what matter most from day to day. That's what ultimately will decide whether Disney World is screwed.

Other parks don't have large, consistent repeat clientele as Disney does. High spending clientele.

See: DISNEYLAND AND DVC

You're arguments seem to be chameleon...changing the narrative
To suite the excuses for complacency in the swamp.

And you can't actually say with a straight face that tiered Pricing is to "limit crowds" can you?

If so...I have some magic beans to sell you?

 

[DDLand]

Why do you think Disney has been struggling to maintain its current roster? Did they run out of money?

I believe it's partially Disney isn't interested in spending the money, which in my view is idiotic. Maintaining and enhancing what's there is much cheaper than sinking 200 million into an E Ticket. Why they don't have the foresight to preserve the experience is mind boggling. I also understand that offerings like Extra Magic Hours have put a strain on maintenance teams. Instead of closing and opening Parks at more reasonable hours, allowing enough time for proper work to be carried out, Disney has been offering this perk and neglecting proper care. I do realize that the product is immense and taking care of it all while welcoming 20 Million people a year is complicated. It's just looking at (I know I know) Disneyland and Tokyo Disney and the way that they're able to take care of things it just proves it can be done.

There may be something to the idea Disney has over expanded with four parks and doesn't have a competent work force because of it. I couldn't say one way or another. All I know is there are attractions that should be in great shape that aren't.

Other parks don't have large, consistent repeat clientele as Disney does. High spending clientele.

See: DISNEYLAND AND DVC

You're arguments seem to be chameleon...changing the narrative
To suite the excuses for complacency in the swamp.

And you can't actually say with a straight face that tiered Pricing is to "limit crowds" can you?

If so...I have some magic beans to sell you?

You're the one who always likes to talk about guests taking once in a lifetime trips or trips every three to five years. The majority of guests visiting MK today probably haven't experienced Mine Train yet. Everything that for us seems like ages ago (like Mine Train), are actually relatively new in the theme park's history. SW Land will be critical in drawing in new guests. I think it's bad business for them to move slowly on this, but keep in mind that all indicators are that they're moving at a good pace.

That to me is different conversation. New attractions are critical to WDW's long term success. More critical however, is a unwavering drive for quality and superior customer service. That will ensure the customer and fan base.

I don't understand why it's unbelievable that hundreds of dollars in savings would get families to reconsider when to visit.