Why Shouldn't WDW close each Park One Day a Week?

[crusader]

How is it that in the midst of the WORST prolonged economy slump in several generations over in Japan that OLC has built and is enjoying amazing success with their them parks?

Here's their response. Interesting how many times they reference the economy as the reason for slowed growth and other factors. Also interesting is the schedule of event/attraction introductions. Who is it that complained about off the shelf copycat installments?

http://www.olc.co.jp/ir_2003a/ar2003.pdf

Keep in mind the Japanese do not have the same financial reporting requirements as the U.S. Whether these numbers are "clean" is relevant to any assessment.

Demographics are critical as well as scope and competition.

 

[PKS44]

Crusader-thanks for the interesting link-not sure what your point is--I read that report and see a company that has a completely different strategy than Disney-they admit that tough economic times will impact their business- how could they not--but their response is to invest in making their product better not by trying to cut costs and risk making the product worse...And they tell folks that this could TEMPORARILY depress profits but in the long run it will make them stronger and more profitable....this has worked for them already- in investing huge amounts in TDSeas they were ridiculed by Disney which snickered as they confidently counted their far cheaper DCA chckens before they hatched....TDSeas greeted their 10 millionth visitor after 10 months....when did DCA greet theirs?

 

[miko]

I think families with young children would find that MK being closed for a day an issue. Also I think Universal (substitute for Disney Studios) and Sea World (substitute for AK) would like to see this happen. Disney does not want visitors to stay offsite, they certainly don't want guests going to other parks because they don't have "equivalent" open!

 

[crusader]

PKS44:

I posted the link to eliminate the guesswork and found it very informative as well.

While I did see various parallels in terms of business development with the US counterpart - ie (cloning/value resort expansion/expense reduction), I also found some very clear distinctions regarding financial commitment.

I interpret the OLC's structure and business philosophy in Tokyo to mimick the Disneyland of Walt's era. The Japanese parks compete locally and pull from the same demographic as noted by the recent collapse and bankruptcy of Huis Ten Bosch - a themepark in Nagasaki.

You'll get no argument from me regarding California Adventure as compared to TDS. Two entirely different approaches to success which clearly evidences a shift in philosophy on the part of Disney Corporate as more financially driven vs the guest enhancement/experience investment strategy which drives OLC in Tokyo.

This doesn't mean Disney as a whole in the U.S. is in serious trouble. From what I have come to understand this past year, there is a remedial effort underway which incorporates an expansive park/guest investment strategy. WDW will certainly continue as the industry leader in my view. DL and CA have a unique demographic issue which will require a substantial reassessment and probable overhaul to redirect.

 

[raidermatt]

There's a point where the cuts have an impact. We're not there.

There is no "magic" point (pun intended) at which damage to the guest experience starts having an impact. Its a continuum. At any point in time, there are some who are teetering on the edge of not taking a Disney vacation, or perhaps delaying it. This is true in both the best and worst of times. The slightest diminishment of value is not going to impact the decisions of those more committed to their choice, but it will impact the decisions of the fence sitters. At the same time, folks who were just leaning on the fence, become the new fence sitters...

Yes, its true that this is not the only thing that impacts their decision, and certainly the less than stellar job situation has an impact. But its not an either/or situation. Shortage of jobs or plenty of jobs, lowering the benefit side of the value equation will have an impact.

The other thing to consider is that, as has been pointed out many times here, those of us who keep current on the cuts are a small minority of WDW's visitors. The majority only base their opinion on the guest experience they find on their trips. Since many do not visit every year, its going to take awhile for cuts to be felt by these people. For example, if a family visits every 4 years, and last visited in 1999, they are only this year experiencing the cuts of the last 4 years. Should they decide to go elsewhere next time, it will be 4 more years before Disney feels the impact.

What's even more disconcerting about that is that even if Disney were to restore all of the cuts, the folks who don't pay attention won't know it, and the restorations won't impact their decisions.

 

[crusader]

The slightest diminishment of value is not going to impact the decisions of those more committed to their choice, but it will impact the decisions of the fence sitters. At the same time, folks who were just leaning on the fence, become the new fence sitters...

I agree and disagree. I view a fence sitter as indecisive for a number of reasons, with cost and other vacation options being the two most significant deterrants.

It could be the perception of the term value which distinguishes judgement here.

The consumer has X to spend on a vacation and begins pricing things out. Disney costs more because it includes park entrance fees which forces a decision in terms of whether this experience is worth the added expense compared to the other choices out there.

For someone who has never visited destination Z and gone to Disney every year as a child - a new experience which they can better afford looks very appealing because it costs less and takes them somewhere they've never been. Or

Maybe a cruise which incorporates a land and sea package convienently gives the customer both Disney and another destination within one vacation.

I don't believe cutbacks are the facilitator. I believe appeal, cost and purpose are the main considerations.'

Take my little group for example - (I know this doesn't represent the population and therefore could be misconstrued and fail objectively but enlighten me anyway)

Most aren't on the Disney fence, heck- they're not even near the farm! They have very static vacation habits and don't venture far without visiting relatives. Disney was never considered an option until I happened to pitch it last year. The reason so many said yes had nothing to do with the parks or the "magic" or the amenities. It had to do with who was going and how much it would cost. That's it! We could have gone anywhere under this scenario. It just so happened that the DVC brought us to Disney.

So to them what is "value"? A cheap vacation - which proves the point that this term is a subjective intangible.