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

[Another Voice]

"Also, I only suggested closing each Park one day per week, closing any park for two days a week is a different subject."


If I remember correctly, the biggest labor savings from closing the parks is the ability keep one "set" of staff. If a park is open five days a week the dark days become the "weekend" for the majority of in-park employees. For example everyone on the 'Jungel Cruise' works Wednesday through Sunday. But if the park is closed only one day, then you need people to staff the extra day. Causual or temporary employees still cost money, even if they work only on Tuesdays. With benefits, the extra costs of the support infrastructure and taxes, it may not be worth it just to have a single down day.


"but I must say I find it hard to believe that Disneyland chose to perform all 'routines' during the night instead of during the black day."

But Disneyland only had short weeks for just a part of the year - the place was already set up to do the rountine maintenance (painting, light bulbs, cleaning) during seven-day operations. It was never of a case of "We'll wait until February to fix that curb". Also, since the closures came in the middle of winter (it does get cold here too) it wasn't like a lot of gardening could go on. And without thousands of guests trampling through, there wasn't that much maintenance to happen anyway. And two days isn't enough time to do a rehab on a ride or such - attractions still went down for a couple weeks each year even with the two "free" days.

At best, the closures allowed some work to go on with having to distrub the guests, but it wasn't a magical period that allowed everything to be instantly fixed. Remember, WDW ran thirty years in pristing condition with a break. The maintenance condition at the parks these days has to do with the way the company is being run, not becuase us guests are greedily demanding the parks remain open the full seven days of our expensive vacation.

 

[sters]

No. What would likely happen is that people would go to Universal if thier favorite park was closed that day.

And, really, can you see Epcot, with all it's good dining options, closing?

 

[Planogirl]

I remember one time when we were staying at the Polynesian Resort back in the time before the cutbacks and we happened to be there when MK was reserved for senior night. We were herded out of MK early and we returned to our hotel. We could certainly see MK across the water and I heard more than my fair share of grumbling about not being able to go there. It was odd to have the park so close and not be able to go there at 6 in the evening!

If people can be resentful when this happens for one evening, how can Disney justify this on a regular basis? After all MK IS WDW to a lot of people.

As for people leaving to visit Universal, some have already started doing that.

 

[tixx]

open the park till midnight

 

[Testtrack321]

No. I use a Mac since it gives me controll of my computing experence. I want that same controll over my Disney vacation. Also, times were different back in Walt's day. DL wasn't a destination resort, it was a small local park.

I spend loads of money to go to WDW, so why should I be told that I can't go to Epcot because MGM, MK, and AK are all open?

 

[Peter Pirate]

TT, my friend, I thought I'd told you the "why's" of the proposal... But since you (and others) don't want the change as I propose it, I guess that means you're happier with the way the hours, fireworks, attraction openings are currently being run?

I mean my supposition is for a return to expectation meeting or exceeding 6 days a week vs. the status quo for 7...

 

[Another Voice]

Kinda of funny how they used to exceed everyone's expectations seven days a week...

...and now you're asking us just to have them met six days a week.

No wonder WDW has lost it's hold on the public's imagination. Somehow the motto "The Place Were The Magic Occasionally Shows Up When the Margins Are To Our Liking" doesn't really drive people into a wild frenzy to spend money.

 

[crusader]

The cutbacks are not causing people to steer clear of WDW for their vacations. I've only met a handful here who unequivocally have stated that. Nowhere else am I hearing this complaint.

The only reason I see for not dropping thousands on Disney is that there is no longer free flowing cash available to many families. Remember, the nineties were booming but not simply because individuals were bringing in more disposable income. That was a facade. Households were freeing up money through other means - the most common of which were pension distributions, refinancing, home equity loans and capital gains.

Unfortunately, it was all spent on SUV's, large homes, vacations and consumer goods. Now, there isn't any savings, the job market has dried up and the debt is due. Families have very limited amounts of money left to spend.

But then Disney did something unprecedented with the FTP campaign. They made the vacation more affordable and the bookings increased. What this tells me is that consumers weren't passing up this vacation because of the "slippery slope" theory - it was a basic financial decision.

 

[Peter Pirate]

...it was a basic financial decision.

Absolutely correct sir!

Mr. Voice, no need to steer the thread back to the same ole debate. I understand your view. I don't disagree with many things but this whole conversation is a big "what-if"... Sure, maybe we used to be able to expect "x, y & z" from Disney but now we're only getting "x" and sometimes "y", what's wrong with a simple discussion that includes the realities of today (i.e eisner is the boss, the company is a multinational-conglomerate and Walt is dead) and a scenerio that could get us "x, y & z" again on a six day basis vs. seven? It's just fodder for discussion...

It seems to me like three parks is still quite a choice from Disney and throw in SW & USF and the consumer still has a plethora of choices. Although dollars to donuts tells me that a succssful implementation of this program will have USF doing the same over there one day a week (midweek).

I'm simply saying if this were the ONLY way we were going to see a resumption of the hours and services that we used to expect vs. the status quo, isn't it worth consideration?

 

[Another Voice]

"They made the vacation more affordable and the bookings increased."

That exactly proves the point - Disney has overpriced their offerings. People are still willing to spend: cruise ships are full, ariline fares are high, even Disneyland's attendance is up.

But there are two sides to the value equation - you either offer a lot for people's money or you ask for less of it.

Disney seems systematically incapable now of offering more. Cut hours, reduced meals sizes, shuttered shops and whole lands, mothballed hotels, "guess today's park hours" trip planning, and nickel-and-dime the experience at every change (ooh - ride photos, how "magical").

It's a valid option, but one more suited to Wal Mart than a professed "world wide brand leader". The Company has choosen cheaper themselves because they think it's the easier and quicker way to more money. And becaue they think there are enough people dumb enough to go along with it.

They're wrong. Check out the numbers for Califorina Adventure and you'll see EXACTLY how much people pay for The Brand without Value.

 

[PKS44]

The economy excuse is just that-an excuse-good companies find a way to keep their customers coming.

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?

How in this country is Harley Davidson thriving in a time when people are supposedly unable to spend on luxury/leisure?

Try going to Vegas and telling the people there about the bad economy--if they can hear you over the crowds...

Sorry- the buck just is not stopping at WDW because WDW keeps passing the buck instead of looking at their own failures.

 

[crusader]

AV

To say that disney "overcharged" and had to now discount because the public wised up and abandoned the parks is really off the mark.

What if there were no cutbacks everything was fully restored and the prices were adjusted for inflation.

Do you honestly believe the bookings would be higher right now? No way.

There are so many people scrounging for money who really can't afford the trip. It is not because of the hours or the refurbishments or the parade schedules or the food portions. It is because of the money. There is less available to spend and options are being weighed very carefully.

PKS44-

The economy is a great theoretical debate to dismiss. It symbolically refers to a litany of issues. What I am talking about is a person's livelihood. Their financial condition, so to speak. It is not thriving for many people and there has been a tremendous shift in spending. That doesn't mean leisure and entertainment has ceased - it means less is being put out.

Vegas is offering discounts. Retail is in a slump. You can't look around and dismiss the reality staring back at you. I see it everytime I step foot in my local shopping districts. I hear people tell me how bad it is for their families.
It is not a concept. People are living it.

 

[Another Voice]

Wasn't it in yesterday's speech where Rausalo said WDW's target market was the $65,000-$70,000 annual income household?

Hardly the foodstamp crowd.

There is no such thing as an absolute price. Something is worth whatever someone else is willing to pay for it. A company has to find the balance between their costs and the public's perceived value for the product.

Right now for all indications, WDW's perceived value is very low. Even Disney understands that as shown by the incredable array of discounts they are offering. Another tact would have been to offer so much for the money that people's perception of value would have been increased. That was how WDW operated for thirty years. It has never[/I] been a cheap vacation but pepole always figured it was worth it - and that was at times of 20% inflation, 10% unemployment and gas rationing that makes todays "sluggish recovery" seem like boom times to anyone not running for office.

A clearer example of Disney's value is here at California Adventure. A day park plopped right down in the middle of the long, largest, most loyal customer base the company has - and no one shows up. The place is an economic disaster.

It's not because people are unwilling to travel - it's an hour's drive. It's not because people don't have the disposable income - it's the same price as Disneyland. It's not that people hate Disney - Disneyland's attendance is up (and it's less than a hundred yards away).

DCA is a failure because people think it's not worth the money. WDW has the same problem, but on a much larger scale because of the cost involved.

Disney's "have pity for the times are bad" routinue is getting a little old. They have done nothing proactive to fix the problem, they've only done the cheapest, the easiet, the highest margin efforts possible. All they've done is to force their problems onto the guests. It is a tactic that is against Disney's past operating practices and runs counter to what has worked for them before.

People understand that. And they don't like it.

 

[PKS44]

Originally posted by PKS44
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?

 

[crusader]

Wasn't it in yesterday's speech where Rausalo said WDW's target market was the $65,000-$70,000 annual income household?

Sounds good but what does that really mean? Is this a two-income household or one? If both are working, someone isn't getting paid very much - and who's minding the kids?

Take at least 20-25% off the top for every tax known to man (school/state/local/federal/social security/sales tax/utilities/gasoline; etc) and that family is down to about $4200/month to spend on everything - best case.

So after the mortgage/rent;car payments;food;insurance;utilities; and incidentals -

There isn't very much available for tuition; home improvements; travel; leisure and entertainment.

For many people a "value" is perceived as a coupon rather than a perk. If I heard Rasulo correctly, Disney has indirectly acknowledged this "bargain" shopping philosophy by doubling the size of their value resorts.

Another tact would have been to offer so much for the money that people's perception of value would have been increased.

Which is the philosophy I hear over and over again on these boards. My main problem with it is that this requires a company to implement inflationary adjustments in order to sustain the operating results they are accustomed to. I don't believe Disney can raise their prices to meet this standard. It won't sell.

 

[raidermatt]

I'm just wondering if we have all become a bit spoiled where WDW is concerned. It seems like the majority of people out there want nothing to do with reduced hours, or parks being closed one day each week. I think we might be both spoiled and selfish.

No, we are just consumers who expect a certain value for our dollar. "Spoiled" is a personal judgement, and when it comes to business, you can't simply tell your customers they are spoiled and that they need to suck it up.

A lot of people try to complicate matters, but the basic principles are really very simple. The larger the benefit you offer to your customers, the higher the price point they are willing to support. Regardless of what level that benefit was, if you lower it, demand for your product will decrease. The result must either be lower prices or a decreased sales quantity.

Unless all of your competitors decrease the benefit side of the value equation along with you (and remember, Disney's competitors are not just other amusement parks), you are going to be forced down the ladder perception-wise.

You can't explain those basic business laws away with a personal sampling of your acquaintances, or by making your own value judgement that consumers are just spoiled. You also can't circumvent them with marketing. All you can do is accept them, and attempt to succeed within them.

Disney is marketing themselves as the same old premium experience, however the reality is that they are lowering the level of that experience. A sterling reputation will carry you with consumers for awhile, especially when the average cycle between visits is measured in years, but eventually, they will catch on.

 

[Another Voice]

Yet the Disney Cruise Lines charges a premium over other cruises of comparable class and the Mouse's ships are full.

Why? - Because people are willing to pay extra for something extra.

The "financial burden" at WDW are not the results of problems at the park. Look at the financials, they've already made a ton of money this year and that's factoring in losses from Disneyland and Euro Disney.

The parks - and since DCA it's been WDW alone - have had to continuly pump out cash so that Disney can show their promised "20% growth per year" to keep all those options afloat.

A normal business in rough times would accept a little less return so they a) won't turn off their existing customers and b) cheapen their product.

But that's exactly what Disney has done. More and more people are complaining about the conditions and operations of the parks. The constant and unimaginative discounting has lowered the perceived price point for Disney products (you think anyone is going to pay full admission to Califorina Adventure or the published room rates for a WDW resort again?).

I'm not saying that all you have to do is to restore the Magic Kingdom's midnight closing and everything will be fine. But Disney's solutions to the problems (which started long before 9-11) have always been the easiest, least guest-friendly possible. For a company that prides itself on imagination and customer service, such a tactic is a disaster.

There's only so long you can cut back before it dramatically hurts you. Disney has passed that point.

 

[crusader]

Actually I agree.

There's a point where the cuts have an impact. We're not there. In fact, the recent announcements have indicated an attraction investment prioritization plan which is very favorable.

But comeon! This value and perception business model ideology hasn't actually caused a decline in attendance. It is a theory in print only - not in practice here.

A WDW vacation is still regarded as a big deal to afford mainly because of the added cost of the park tickets - which tack on over $1000.00.

You have to convince yourself: is it worth spending that extra grand upfront on a vacation?

People know what the theme parks offer and are deciding whether that level of fun is worth the money.

It isn't because the park hours have changed or other cutbacks have taken place.

It is because Disney requires the vacationer to come up with more money than the competition for a trip in order to experience attractions and exhibits.

That means choice. Do they really want that so much they are willing to make the financial commitment this year? Or
Are they going to put it off until they can better afford it.

What the FTP did was say: You need less than that $1000.00 so make the trip now. And many consumers did.

That's where the business model falls short. People don't have that extra grand so freely today, and aren't very willing to part with it. The most pristine vacation destinations in the country aren't going to get it out of their hands right now. By Disney inadvertantly offering a special package which allowed consumers to apply the money toward discretionary spending they were quickly able to grab the business away from the competition.

 

[PKS44]

Most of the people I know either have no interest in going or if they have been in the past love going and want to go back soon...except those who have been there for the first time more recently...
Also still waiting for an answer to this question from any of those who cite the economy as an explanation for Disney's woes.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by PKS44
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

scoop has a good point about saturation though...DCL, DL, DCA, WDW, DLP, TDL and TDS....they may have cannibalized their own market.

Also their key demographic has aged and they are not poised to hold onto them as they go from 8 to 10 now 15-17years old

 

[Testtrack321]

I never said that I was happy, but do you think Mr. Pirate that the money will go back to late evenings, more fireworks, and more rides open? I doubt it. Closing rides isn't an answer to the cost problem. Most people go for 5 days. If they go to each of the parks for 4 days, but then want to go to MK, only to find it closed, will they head to Epcot? MGM? Mabey AK? Nope. They'll go to Sea World and Universal. Remeber, not a lot of people buy the hopper passes or even the lenth of stay. Many wing-it, day-by-day, buying their tickets as they get into the parks.

BUT what I think would be a fair trade-off would be to have one park have an early close & late open while the others have a late close & early open. I think that would be a good idea.