Whats Wrong with Disney?

[kaytieeldr]

Yes. Not at all like park hopping between, oh, say Epcot and DHS.

Agreed. All Epcot attractions are wholly in Epcot; all DHS attractions are wholly in DHS. Guests can choose to visit one or both parks. With Diagon Alley, guests must visit two parks, whether they choose to or not. This forces the USF attendance numbers up.

 

[kaytieeldr]

I don't think of it as a Disney vs Universal discussion. My issue is that Disney seems to be focused solely on generating more revenue for themselves. Almost every new project at WDW has been for increased revenue.

Whereas Universal is focused solely on guest experience, with the increased revenue being an unexpected happy accident?

 

[sonofanarchy]

Any individual WDW theme park has had higher attendance the last three years than both USF parks. Magic Kingdom alone hosted more guests each year than both Universal parks together. http://www.totalorlando.com/blog/universal-park-become-orlandos-fourth-biggest-2014/



Interesting, that. It appears visitors will need a two-part pass and will be attending two parks. Sort of a sneaky way to increase attendance need numbers.

I never said Universal's parks had higher attendance. I just said the attendance at the other 3 Disney parks was more in line with Universal attendance than the Magic Kingdom's.

As for seeing both parks, Disney has been selling the park hopper for years. What's the difference?

 

[clsteve]

Agreed. All Epcot attractions are wholly in Epcot; all DHS attractions are wholly in DHS. Guests can choose to visit one or both parks. With Diagon Alley, guests must visit two parks, whether they choose to or not. This forces the USF attendance numbers up.

I'm not sure I understand the fixation on attendance figures. They really mean very little without including top line revenue and profitability growth. Connecting WWoHP and DA with the HE is all about those other two, and some about yield and capacity management. It's a brilliant financial move, one I'm sure you will see copied by others where it's physically feasible.

In return, they've provided a state-of-the-art , never been done before attraction, the Hogwart's Express, as value back to the customer. Not a bad trade-off.....

 

[PetePanMan]

I don't see it as Disney Versus Universal either - both can co-exist quite successfully. I may be wrong but Avatar land / experience / theming could be quite unique and incredible. Will need to wait and see. Don't get me wrong, Star Wars seems like a no brainer - no sure why this is not in plans (or is it?)

 

[larryz]

Harry Potter is now open for another beautiful expansion and what is Disneys answer.... Avatar Land?

They put a former weatherman in charge.

 

[AThrillingChase]

Don't know that Disney really needs a "response", other than to satisfy the writers of the travel industry insider magazines. They'll do just fine selling what they have for years.

Meanwhile, Universal is doing a superb job developing their Potter franchise. They deserve all the credit they get.

As for Disney's choice of new developments, I don't think we're going to say anything that hasn't already been said in the past two years. When Pandora opens, there will be big crowds. If it's done well, it will continue to draw guests.

ETA - Disney has a bunch of neat stuff in development - some of it just awaiting budget approval before it can be announced. Wish I could say more, but all I know is bits and pieces. (Think they could do something interesting with a Studios expansion to the other side of World Drive? Including an interesting way to get you there?)

My ears just pricked up a little...also well stated. I have never even seen avatar but with Joe Rhode and the concept art I have seen it looks amazing regardless of the avatar connection. AK needed something and its getting it. I personally do not feel this was a response to HP. Seems to me star wars was in the pipeline for awhile, and that is certainly a response.

It never fails that a thread like this turns into Universal vs. Disney. It does not have to be all or nothing for either of these parks. You can enjoy both.

I do however think that people are missing the real Disney expansion. Everyone is focusing on Avatarland as being the big Disney idea for the next 10 years and how that will compare against HP.

I think that the integration of Star Wars will be the big move for Disney. With the three new movies coming out for Star Wars, I will theorize that Star Wars will be much more relevant (again) in comparison to HP over the next 10 to 15 years and beyond. It is much more difficult to keep something relevant when no new source material is being created for it.

Disney did not spend all of that money for the rights to the Star Wars franchise solely for three more movies. I think plans are being developed for something big.

Agreed! Very well stated on all points! I am just anxiously awaiting details. Seems there is construction and updates in every park except HS the last few years. Which makes sense if you are trying to cement plans to bring something as big as star wars in, in a big way. TSM was put in an area that does not seem on the chopping block space wise, and as best I can remember thats been the only real addition in years. But I also agree this seems silly. We can enjoy both and appreciate if they keep each other on their toes a bit.

 

[StarWarsJez]

I don't see it as Disney Versus Universal either - both can co-exist quite successfully. I may be wrong but Avatar land / experience / theming could be quite unique and incredible. Will need to wait and see. Don't get me wrong, Star Wars seems like a no brainer - no sure why this is not in plans (or is it?)

I agree, both Avatar and Star Wars lands will be great. Problem is Disney will talk for years, build them at.a snails pace (cus it's cheaper) and it'll be 2020 before we see anything interesting.

 

[mom2rtk]

I agree, both Avatar and Star Wars lands will be great. Problem is Disney will talk for years, build them at.a snails pace (cus it's cheaper) and it'll be 2020 before we see anything interesting.

That really is a big piece of the issue.

 

[Letterhead]

Animal Kingdom is currently less than a 1-day park. They needed to start adding to it to get more visitors in, and keep them there for longer.

Avatar is (or at least was, at one stage) the highest grossing film of all time, so it obviously has some fans. But more importantly, it fits into the Animal/Nature theme, and will be something entirely different to anywhere else in the current Disney and Universal parks.

Also, while HP has done brilliantly for IoA, and will do well for US also, Universal seem to be throwing all their eggs in one basket. What happens in ten years time when Potter may no longer be popular due to there being no more books or movies. Yes it is a huge franchise, but it's not Star Wars, so it could lose popularity.

Disney also currently dominate attendances so they aren't under the same pressure as Universal to be constantly bringing in the next big ride/attraction. Lots of people have been complaining about the four WDW parks for years, yet they are still ahead of Universal by a long way in terms of numbers through the gates.

Therefore, WDW prefer to concentrate on increasing profits further by increasing VC capacity and membership.

 

[clsteve]

Animal Kingdom is currently less than a 1-day park. They needed to start adding to it to get more visitors in, and keep them there for longer.

Avatar is (or at least was, at one stage) the highest grossing film of all time, so it obviously has some fans. But more importantly, it fits into the Animal/Nature theme, and will be something entirely different to anywhere else in the current Disney and Universal parks.

Also, while HP has done brilliantly for IoA, and will do well for US also, Universal seem to be throwing all their eggs in one basket. What happens in ten years time when Potter may no longer be popular due to there being no more books or movies. Yes it is a huge franchise, but it's not Star Wars, so it could lose popularity.

Disney also currently dominate attendances so they aren't under the same pressure as Universal to be constantly bringing in the next big ride/attraction. Lots of people have been complaining about the four WDW parks for years, yet they are still ahead of Universal by a long way in terms of numbers through the gates.

Therefore, WDW prefer to concentrate on increasing profits further by increasing VC capacity and membership.

The Mouse, Cinderella, Peter Pan, etc., have seemed to stay relevant for decades, it seems...

Others have articulated very well why HP will stay relevant for decades, I'll just go back to what many have said about Splash Mt and most of the popular attractions at WDW - it's the quality of it as much as the back story that keeps them relevant. Not much chance of that being an issue with what we're seeing from DA. And I do agree with you on the why of Avatar - it's detailed in the Disney Why link, below.

But back to OP's original premise rather than continuing the UOR vs. WDW discussion. If the industry and analyst estimates are true, DA came in at a figure between $240 and $300 million. That's pretty impressive. While NFL seems nice enough, let's not forget what it was going to be before negative guest feedback got 7DMT added in and the reaction to the tiny little castle and the Little Mermaid DL copy. I hope OP chimes in here, so I'm not off-base. But, I can see how some would be skeptical over Avatar's footprint and Disney's execution - especially since the rumors have been more about dropping things from the final Avatar footprint rather than adding.

Optimistically, I hope DA has raised the bar so much that Disney has no other option but to do it the way they used to do it - over the top - by letting the Imagineers loose and really coming up with some things that are industry recognized state-of-the-art and never been done before.

 

[Jennasis]

Harry Potter isn't going anywhere. There are new films on the slate too. No worries there.

I'm sure The Wondrous World of Pandora (or whatever they're calling it) will be lovely, and entertaining. I wish they'd picked a different IP for the space. I do not believe the gross of the films indicates popularity...I think it indicates HYPE. I paid money to see it...but I wasn't a fan walking away. Got sucked in by the promises and the hype.

That said, now that it's coming, I will enjoy whatever it turns out to be...and hope they put some effort into DHS as well.

 

[WDW1971]

The way I see it, Disney World's problems, such as they are, are a result of its enormous success.

First, Disney has more to lose than Universal. At the moment, whatever they are doing seems to be working in terms of crowds and revenues. They know they can't stand still, but they also don't want to mess up a good thing.

At Disney World, Disney is engaging in the classic leader's strategy of measured change. Sometimes it works, sometimes the leader is caught flatfooted, selling yesterday's product. However, since a big part of their theme park business is based on sentiment, tradition, and family memories, it seems less likely to be disrupted than, say, smartphones or some other tech business.

Universal, by contrast, has far less to lose. In fact, in the past they arguably weren't really in the same business as Disney. They are now -- I expect my kids will remember their trips as an important part of their childhood. But the old UO was probably no more entrenched in anyone's heart than 6 Flags. They still have a ways to go in some places -- e.g., the faded Toon area at IOA -- we had to explain to our kids who Dudley Doright and Popeye are. So, for now, UO has way more to win and way less to lose by making big, bold, fast moves.

Second, Disney World is a victim of its success in terms of its popularity. Please, please let's not start a debate on FP+, but it's worth noting that only Disney (arguably) needs something like FP+.

I was grateful to have it on our trip earlier this month (I know, YMMV), because it seemed to me the only way to deal with the summer crowds. We also had a touring strategy, of course. (FP in the AM, break in the afternoon, FP#4 and lighter crowds at night).

180 Day ADRs with cancellation fees are part of the same issue. It's the only way to keep dining somewhat sane.

However, when we spent our last 2 nights and one day at Universal, I had a real epiphany: Disney World has become very much a Type A vacation. We spent it going from one appointment to another. It never got too stressful, but I can't say there was never stress. It was mild stress in the form of, "okay, we need to get that snack or shop later because our FP will expire soon," but it was there.

At Universal, with our onsite unlimited fastpass, it was a welcome contrast. It felt so relaxing! We weren't worried about the clock at all. We didn't have a strategy. We had no appointments. We just had fun.

Disney World can never be that way, unless one goes in the true and increasingly shrinking offseason. And Universal would love to have this "problem," and is trying hard to create it.

But, boy, a Disney World vacation can get a little uptight.

 

[Planogirl]

Even if Harry Potter suddenly loses popularity (which I don't believe for a second) who doesn't love a castle and dragons and other cool creatures? As we've seen from Disney's own attractions, the story can be either irrelevant or non-existent and the attraction can still be loved.

Why does this always turn into a Disney versus Universal argument? It's possible to critique Disney's development (or lack thereof) without tearing down other companies. Making Universal look bad doesn't make Disney look better.

 

[BugsDaddy]

Harry Potter isn't going anywhere. There are new films on the slate too. No worries there.

I'm sure The Wondrous World of Pandora (or whatever they're calling it) will be lovely, and entertaining. I wish they'd picked a different IP for the space. I do not believe the gross of the films indicates popularity...I think it indicates HYPE. I paid money to see it...but I wasn't a fan walking away. Got sucked in by the promises and the hype.

That said, now that it's coming, I will enjoy whatever it turns out to be...and hope they put some effort into DHS as well.

Well, keep in mind that the only thing "new" coming in the HP universe is a spin off prequel for Fantastic Beasts. It is not going to be about HP himself and is based off of a novel written in 2001. So, not exactly new material. It will need to have to stand on its own much like the Star Wars prequel had to stand on its own. The new Star Wars movies carries the story forward and involves most of the main characters from the original trilogy. In other words, there is always more excitement and anticipation for a trilogy when you do not know what is going to happen vs. knowing the final outcome.

There is also risk with releasing either of these. If they prove to be unpopular or poorly made, they can have a negative affect on the existing legacy of the current franchise. I think US has more risk here as they have put all of their eggs (and a lot of capital) in the Harry Potter basket.

 

[Planogirl]

Well, keep in mind that the only thing "new" coming in the HP universe is a spin off prequel for Fantastic Beasts. It is not going to be about HP himself and is based off of a novel written in 2001. So, not exactly new material. It will need to have to stand on its own much like the Star Wars prequel had to stand on its own. The new Star Wars movies carries the story forward and involves most of the main characters from the original trilogy. In other words, there is always more excitement and anticipation for a trilogy when you do not know what is going to happen vs. knowing the final outcome.

There is also risk with releasing either of these. If they prove to be unpopular or poorly made, they can have a negative affect on the existing legacy of the current franchise. I think US has more risk here as they have put all of their eggs (and a lot of capital) in the Harry Potter basket.

I don't know... Some really dreadful Disney sequels don't seem to have hurt some of Disney's characters. Plus there is still excitement for new Star Wars films in spite of The Phantom Menace.

 

[BugsDaddy]

By the way, I am not saying that HP is "going anywhere". I think it will continue to be popular for years to come. Will that popularity wain in the next 10 to 15 years? Possibly. Very few franchises have proven to be able to stand the test of time, regardless of their initial popularity. I don't think HP is iconic in the way Star Wars is iconic. At least not yet. Could it become like that? It could, but only time will tell. Star Wars has been around for almost 40 years. Let's see where HP is 20 years from now.

Regardless, I think Star Wars is what US needs to worry about in terms of defending their market share. Not Avatarland which everyone seems focused on. Avatar land is just a distraction.

 

[BugsDaddy]

I don't know... Some really dreadful Disney sequels don't seem to have hurt some of Disney's characters. Plus there is still excitement for new Star Wars films in spite of The Phantom Menace.

True, there have been some horrible sequels by Disney but you notice that almost all of these are direct to DVD type releases and are very under hyped? In other words, Disney had no intention of creating a real, high quality sequel. They just wanted to milk a little more revenue out of the characters in the original story. They make it so small that they know it will not risk the legacy of the original movie.

 

[btk2333]

Or perhaps you haven't done every thing on every trip.

We have. If you're referring to other experiences that cost extra money whether in or outside of the theme parks, sure, there's more to do. If you're talking about things to do inside the parks included in your admission, if you've found multiple new things to do in 8 trips over 3 years, then you obviously weren't doing everything in the parks. Which is fine. Point is, there aren't that many new things in the parks. Unless, by my math, you've uncovered at least 24 new experiences over the past 8 years. If you have, please share them with the rest of us.

I would be shocked if you really and truly have done everything there is to do at every park

Is the number 24 coming from 8 trips in 3 parks? I'm not sure where your number is coming from; however, somethings are really easy just by going at different times- off the top of my head.

1) Food and Wine
2) Flower and Garden
3) Fourth of July
4) Christmas/ Christmas party
4a) Jingle Cruise
5) Be Our Guest Restaurant
6) Under the Sea
7) Enchanted Tales with Belle
8) Princess Fairytale Hall
9) Festival of Fantasy Parade
10) Seven Dwarfs Mine Train
11) Celebrate the Magic Castle Show
12) Anna and Elsa
13) Star Tours (re-opened just over 3 years ago..)
14) Sorcerers of the Magic Kingdom

(only including things that we do/would do (haven't personally done the Mine Train yet)- there are other things at like Wilderness Explorers, the meet and greets in Storybook Circus, Legend of Jack Sparrow, that we don't do)
and things that cost more money but I still include because they're new... especially dining because that's a huge reason why we go to Disney... (if you can't tell Epcot is our favorite park)- again only including places at which we've actually eaten
14) Spice Road Table
15) La Cava
16) Tutto Gusto
17) The ice cream martini place in France
18) refurbished Cali Grill
19) RunDisney events (Wine and Dine)

then there are things that aren't necessarily new but new to us
20) First time at JellyRolls
21) First time bringing our twins (February 2015) which will make everything old new again
22)Staying at new resorts
23) First time Drinking Around the World


sorry I fell a little short of 24 and I broke some of your rules but I'm sure there are other things I just can't come up with and your rules are arbitrary anyway- we are just as excited about a new restaurant as a new ride and are excited to be entering a new phase in our lives where we can enjoy the "kiddy rides" again through the eyes of our children.

 

[mom2rtk]

Second, Disney World is a victim of its success in terms of its popularity. Please, please let's not start a debate on FP+, but it's worth noting that only Disney (arguably) needs something like FP+.

Disney only needs FP+ because they have opted not to add enough attractions to balance the amount of new bodies coming in the gates.