Is this a reason for Disney to worry?

[3DisneyFanz]

i find dinseyworld and universal are 2 different parks. disney is for the magic and characters and all around fun time. Universal is more for rides, and drinking, all around more adult park.

people will always be going to disneyworld.. no matter how popular uni gets.

When is the last time you went to EPCOT? It's essentially a bar with a really high cover charge now.

 

[rteetz]

When is the last time you went to EPCOT? It's essentially a bar with a really high cover charge now.

Especially during food and wine.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Especially during food and wine.

Well...they've basically extended for half the year in one form or another at this point

 

[sachilles]

Disney's biggest worry are world event's that lead to a downturn in the economy. That in turn hurts individuals discretionary spending. Disney parks is quite a bit bigger than Universal. In order to innovate, it costs them more money, but likely in a similar ratio. The nature of the business requires investment today, for returns 5+ years away. That is an eternity. No doubt they fear a world event, causing a tourism drought, with a few half completed projects in the hopper.
Honestly, they need Universal, they need skyplex, they need every little mom and pop attraction to continue to make the Orlando area, the go to spot for vacations. Despite growing pains that accompany growth, it affords opportunities. Airfare becomes cheaper, ground travel becomes cheaper. Food prices, lodging and many more industries all depend on this competition. There is an ebb and flow, and some times you are on the negative side of the equation. Industries grow at different rates. A nice new road in, isn't crowded at first, but eventually it fills to capacity, then people gripe about the road. There is a happy medium. Orlando hasn't found that happy medium yet.
I think Disney is smart enough to worry about growing too fast. Many complain that they drag their heals, and are slow to build. I won't dispute that. However, I think the institutional memory of the decline after 9/11 is still pretty strong. At their size, they must commit a lot of money to growth projects.
So when people discuss the phase 3 and 4 at DHS, and how it's already "budgeted", you have to look at it realistically.....a budget is a plan on a piece of paper(or maybe in excel). In a moments notice, things can change, the paper can be tossed in the trash, with everyone starting over. Anything can be moth balled if the situation is dire enough(Art of Animation). So you can budget for things, but it's another thing to actually have the money in that budget needed....and yet another to actually start writing checks.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Disney's business was in decline in Orlando in early 2001 after the end of the magic wand festival...

That was lost in translation then, now, and continues to be a red herring about "caution"

Recessions are cyclical, necessary, and will never end. We hope they never end - because we are in deep dung if they do.

The reality is that Disney has the financial means to never sit on its hands in the swamp...they do so by choice and that is largely what happened from 1999-2013.

There were things done...but not to the level to fight some stagnation that they are trying to dig out of now.

They obviously don't care as much about repeat business as they used to - eisners strategy was almost completely built around it - but it's a huge segment and end anchor that can drag down the ship if you take it for granted.

The reality is that they whined about the 9/11 recession -
Really that was the tech fallout and some temporary hysteria - then they sat on it and made money, then they whined about the housing crash, now they've sat on it and are making obscene money...
But they also were caught flat footed in both instances.

And now...there's an equal corporation across town run by execs that are "feisty" if nothing else. That's is a game changer...it's not the size of universal parks...it's the size of the wallet behind it and their freedom to go after it.

 

[Mac30188]

Disney's biggest worry are world event's that lead to a downturn in the economy. That in turn hurts individuals discretionary spending. Disney parks is quite a bit bigger than Universal. In order to innovate, it costs them more money, but likely in a similar ratio. The nature of the business requires investment today, for returns 5+ years away. That is an eternity. No doubt they fear a world event, causing a tourism drought, with a few half completed projects in the hopper.
Honestly, they need Universal, they need skyplex, they need every little mom and pop attraction to continue to make the Orlando area, the go to spot for vacations. Despite growing pains that accompany growth, it affords opportunities. Airfare becomes cheaper, ground travel becomes cheaper. Food prices, lodging and many more industries all depend on this competition. There is an ebb and flow, and some times you are on the negative side of the equation. Industries grow at different rates. A nice new road in, isn't crowded at first, but eventually it fills to capacity, then people gripe about the road. There is a happy medium. Orlando hasn't found that happy medium yet.
I think Disney is smart enough to worry about growing too fast. Many complain that they drag their heals, and are slow to build. I won't dispute that. However, I think the institutional memory of the decline after 9/11 is still pretty strong. At their size, they must commit a lot of money to growth projects.
So when people discuss the phase 3 and 4 at DHS, and how it's already "budgeted", you have to look at it realistically.....a budget is a plan on a piece of paper(or maybe in excel). In a moments notice, things can change, the paper can be tossed in the trash, with everyone starting over. Anything can be moth balled if the situation is dire enough(Art of Animation). So you can budget for things, but it's another thing to actually have the money in that budget needed....and yet another to actually start writing checks.

Honestly, they made a significant risk move in regards of the economy via DVC. DVC over hotel rooms traded higher margin boom and bust hotel rooms for smaller, safer, margins. To a certain extent, with regard to DVC, they no longer get stuck with the bill for unfilled hotel rooms in case of an economic downturn. They tried to control demand via cost over massive expansion, but it was not very effective. They can't raise prices fast enough without significant negative publicity to keep up with the growing popularity. Universal's ability to capitalize on growing vacation spending caused Disney to finally breakdown and invest in expansion. They still have some minor control costs inside parks by staff, hour, and attraction schedule modification. Finally, they probably are a little better in an economic downturn by focusing more on the upper to upper middle class then traditional middle class. The barrage of "pricing families out of Disney" publicity is trying to avoid counting on the economic group most impacted by a downturn I the economy.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Honestly, they made a significant risk move in regards of the economy via DVC. DVC over hotel rooms traded higher margin boom and bust hotel rooms for smaller, safer, margins. To a certain extent, with regard to DVC, they no longer get stuck with the bill for unfilled hotel rooms in case of an economic downturn. They tried to control demand via cost over massive expansion, but it was not very effective. They can't raise prices fast enough without significant negative publicity to keep up with the growing popularity. Universal's ability to capitalize on growing vacation spending caused Disney to finally breakdown and invest in expansion. They still have some minor control costs inside parks by staff, hour, and attraction schedule modification. Finally, they probably are a little better in an economic downturn by focusing more on the upper to upper middle class then traditional middle class. The barrage of "pricing families out of Disney" publicity is trying to avoid counting on the economic group most impacted by a downturn I the economy.

Excellent...the real $64,000 question is your last point about moving away from "the traditional middle class"

It's one of the most fascinating developments in business for twdc...

Disney parks were built and are still fueled by the middle class...truth.

Can they become more of a "rich mans playground"?

That's very important

 

[Jake]

I still thinks it comes back to number of vacations day a family can stay in FL. Or how many day they can afford to stay. Family's have lots of other things going on today. Summer sport leagues, school related activity. And my main thing can FL really get more then 50 million people a year. Employment is up but real disposable income is down. And people have less and less of that with everything else going up. Plus universal is doing much better rides right now. In the last 10 years what did Disney add. TSM what you can not get a fast pass for, the kiddie park in MK,, not much

 

[Lee Matthews]

I love that Universal are replacing a lot of old attractions and it really has done more than Disney but in the same breath, most are all the same format. A simulator with 3D Glasses which for me will eventually become a tiresome format

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I love that Universal are replacing a lot of old attractions and it really has done more than Disney but in the same breath, most are all the same format. A simulator with 3D Glasses which for me will eventually become a tiresome format

Don't look now - but what does it appear Disney is rolling out...

A simulator in front of a screen and a boat tour in animal
Kingdom...
...followed by likely two simulators over in studios...

Both places are putting too much emphasis on capacity and universal ridership.

Not that those things aren't important...but you can't live off just that.

The fans will need some g force fo keep
Paying these prices and beyond. It's a prediction on my part - but a safe one.

 

[Eoghann]

I love that Universal are replacing a lot of old attractions and it really has done more than Disney but in the same breath, most are all the same format. A simulator with 3D Glasses which for me will eventually become a tiresome format

The simulators offer greater flexibility (you can tweak the ride scenarios), are generally quicker to build, take up less space and probably appeal to a wider pool of people (though to be fair there are people who get motion sick on those simulators). Which is probably why we're seeing so many of them.

There's no doubt that horrifying roller-coasters are a big draw to a large segment of theme park fans but I'd love to see how the numbers really break down on these things. Roller coaster fans seem to be particularly vocal.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

The simulators offer greater flexibility (you can tweak the ride scenarios), are generally quicker to build, take up less space and probably appeal to a wider pool of people (though to be fair there are people who get motion sick on those simulators). Which is probably why we're seeing so many of them.

There's no doubt that horrifying roller-coasters are a big draw to a large segment of theme park fans but I'd love to see how the numbers really break down on these things. Roller coaster fans seem to be particularly vocal.

There's no replacement for Isaac Newton.

And though my aging blood pressure isn't up for what it was 20 years ago...there's still a need.

Also...many people - including me - have more of an adverse reaction to jerking in front of a screen than they do in a cobra roll at 50 mph.

 

[Eoghann]

Also...many people - including me - have more of an adverse reaction to jerking in front of a screen than they do in a cobra roll at 50 mph.

Which is why I'd love to see a breakdown of the numbers. Because otherwise we're again back to useless anecdotal stuff. Simulators make you feel sick, coasters make me feel sick etc.

Coaster fans are definitely very vocal and apparently prepared to stand in line for an hour for a 2 minute ride. Which must be worth something.

 

[Josh Hendy]

You'll notice that parks which only have rides to attract people with, and who don't own gaga intellectual property that people "must see" ... virtually ONLY build coasters.

At least since the Seaworld arctic helicopter ride flop.

Going forward I doubt that you'll ever see a video screen based ride fobbed off on anything but a "franchise" ...

 

[Eoghann]

You'll notice that parks which only have rides to attract people with, and who don't own gaga intellectual property that people "must see" ... virtually ONLY build coasters.

At least since the Seaworld arctic helicopter ride flop.

Going forward I doubt that you'll ever see a video screen based ride fobbed off on anything but a "franchise" ...

Of course they also attract a lot less people...

 

[Josh Hendy]

Of course they also attract a lot less people...

There are a lot of factors involved, like package holidays, character meet and greets, park location, animal rights protests, and so on. And of course, hot IP

The point is, the last thing that a theme park which attracts a lot less people and which wants to attract more people can afford to build, is a video based simulator ride. Unless they have a wand shop or a Chewbacca meet and greet to make it all ok.

Movie and TV franchises equal video screen or at best hybrid video based rides. Simpsons, Spider Man, Terminator, Fast and Furious, Potter, Minions, Kimmel, Toy Story, Star Wars, King Kong, Frozen, Avatar. Even the nighttime "spectaculars" seem to be evolving toward more video-based presentations.

I can see the trend, I acknowledge its success, and I don't think it will last. I think the public will start to reject the approach and you'll eventually see more rides like 7DMT, Everest, and the newer, longer and less headache inducing coasters like Rip Ride Rockit and Cheetah Chase.

 

[Eoghann]

There are a lot of factors involved, like package holidays, character meet and greets, park location, animal rights protests, and so on. And of course, hot IP

The point is, the last thing that a theme park which attracts a lot less people and which wants to attract more people can afford to build, is a video based simulator ride. Unless they have a wand shop or a Chewbacca meet and greet to make it all ok.

That I agree with, what I'm querying is if we actually know the why of it. The Six Flags type parks market themselves to a different audience. While my level of dislike of roller coasters absolutely makes me a statistical outlier, I'm not alone in finding those parks unappealing. They also don't do traditional "dark" rides so it really is coasters or nothing and that's what the people going there are looking for.

I can see the trend, I acknowledge its success, and I don't think it will last. I think the public will start to reject the approach and you'll eventually see more rides like 7DMT, Everest, and the newer, longer and less headache inducing coasters like Rip Ride Rockit and Cheetah Chase.

I think we can all agree that Disney/Universal style theme parks need a balance of ride types. Where it gets difficult is understanding what that balance should be. Disney really never has had that many coasters. How many traditional dark rides does Universal have?

 

[Josh Hendy]

Good point about the dark rides. Universal has a couple very good ones, Cat in the Hat, ET and Men in Black. They could and should build more. That would help them attract more families, along with a bit more recognition and emulation of the pixie dust element ...meaning more emphasis on warmth of characters, stories and music.

 

[GunnarCharles]

GM and Ford never dreamed they'd have to worry about Honda. No company is above competition and resting on your laurels has been the ruin of many places. While Disney has been focussing on ride rationing and data collection Universal has been pushing guest experience. Disney gets a lot of business from being a destination for people wanting to take their kids to a place they remember from their childhood. If a new generation starts moving over to Universal that shifts. It won't be overnight but Disney clearly is recognizing this or they wouldn't be reacting with HS the way they are.

This is an excellent point. Many people come to Disney because of its iconic reputation or because they have positive past experiences they are looking to repeat. If people are making the move to Universal Parks, they will remember their experiences and come back years from now. Right now, people in their teens and twenties see just as much or more appeal to Universal. It may not seem plausible now, but years from now Universal might be on top if Disney isn't careful. The positive aspect for Universal is that Comcast sees theme parks as great potential since the cable market is continually falling. Because of this they will continue to make significant investments into theme parks as long as they can. It has also became clear recently that Universal is probably going to try and make a 3rd theme park. 3 parks, 5 hotels, 1 water park, and Disney struggling to do anything in a timely manner means Universal is only getting closer and closer. Hopefully Disney makes the necessary investments to keep their edge in this industry.

 

[mick1229]

They should worry because they lost repeat guests like my family for good ...and I'm sure we are indicative of many other families who could no longer justify the give less charge more attitude that WDW has become... I guess they are fine with just getting the "one and done" guests