News Round Up

[Andrew015]

A good nighttime show will keep people in the park. Look at Fantasmic! That park is much worse than AK, but they keep people there with a nighttime show.

I'm not sure that your argument is valid. Annual attendance for HS was 10.1M people with a nighttime show. Annual attendance for AK was 10.2M people without a nighttime show... HS has the fewest ATTRACTIONS of any park in the WDW portfolio. Again, this does nothing but further my argument that ATTRACTIONS bring people to the parks. Not restaurants, not shows. Attractions. Everything else is peripheral.

I personally don't believe that a nighttime show will "bring people to the park", unless it's spectacular. What a nighttime show can and probably will do for AK is shift when people arrive to the park. Rather than arriving at 9:00 am and leaving by 1:00 pm, a number of people will shift their timeslot to later in the day. It won't be a "draw" (unless spectacular), but rather, will be a reason to visit the park later in the day.

 

[twebber55]

I'm not sure that your argument is valid. Annual attendance for HS was 10.1M people with a nighttime show. Annual attendance for AK was 10.2M people without a nighttime show... HS has the fewest ATTRACTIONS of any park in the WDW portfolio. Again, this does nothing but further my argument that ATTRACTIONS bring people to the parks. Not restaurants, not shows. Attractions. Everything else is peripheral.

I personally don't believe that a nighttime show will "bring people to the park", unless it's spectacular. What a nighttime show can and probably will do for AK is shift when people arrive to the park. Rather than arriving at 9:00 am and leaving by 1:00 pm, a number of people will shift their timeslot to later in the day. It won't be a "draw" (unless spectacular), but rather, will be a reason to visit the park later in the day.

what will be interesting is next year when Rivers of Light opens up we can actually get a factual number whether or not a nighttime show does help attendance

 

[Andrew015]

For what it's worth, average attendance for HS is ~27,600 people per day. The Hollywood Hills Amphitheater can hold ~9,000 people. This means that more than 2/3 of the entire day's crowd is either making their way to the exits, or is already long gone by show time...

 

[twebber55]

For what it's worth, average attendance for HS is ~27,600 people per day. The Hollywood Hills Amphitheater can hold ~9,000 people. This means that more than 2/3 of the entire day's crowd is either making their way to the exits, or is already long gone by show time...

and a lot of times when its busy they have two shows, right?

 

[rteetz]

Tron 3 is coming everyone

http://bit.ly/1Aean2S

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Back when Disney MGM opened it was a multi day park, our visit last year we scheduled 1.5 days and it was too much, luckily star wars weekends were going on so could blow extra time in character meets. Going back with the wife only in early Dec and we are thinkink 2.5 or 3 at MK, 2 E, 1 or 1.5 AK, then at most 1 for HS.

Lol...my time in the parks can be closer measured in "hours" than days now...

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I completely agree. I never understand when people call AK a "half-day" park. We love AK and always spend a full day there. If you just want to ride the Safari, EE, Kali (if it's not winter), and Dinosaur and then leave...sure 1/2 a day is it. But just because a few people may not want to take advantage of everything the park has to offer (such as the walking trails), doesn't make it a half-day park.

You know...this is the classic "people don't get it" argument...

And as I saw first hand...people didn't get it early...so I agreed.

But you know...17 years is along time to Keep up the misunderstanding. At some point it is what it is...

They built a roller coaster that didn't work and a puppet show with fish in the last 14 years...that's along time for any park...even a disney one.
I'm with Andy on this...I honestly don't think they're going nearly far enough. It's gonna still come up way short.

The show, avatar, and the restaurant overhaul shoulda been done instead of Chester and Hester...it was needed then...and then followed up with consistency every 3 years afterward...

But here we are...farther down a slippery slope.

 

[jcnewton]

Tron 3 is coming everyone

http://bit.ly/1Aean2S

Was wondering when that would be official. Loved Tron:Legacy.

 

[George4]

See, George you are in a huge minority as someone that used to go for 12-20 days. The VAST majority of park-goers go for 7 days or less. (By VAST I am saying 80-90%.) If Disney were to invest $5 Billion adding major expansions to three of it's parks, that same group of people would spend the exact same amount of money and stay the exact same length of time.

I guess I have to admit that I'm not being very clear in my point, or not articulating it well. I do not mean at all that these need to be ongoing upgrades, nor that they need enough to keep me busy for my 2-3 week vacation. I simply mean they need one big expansion (probably tiered in over a several years) at the three secondary parks so that they start to become a near equal draw to MK. In the process, they will create a resort that will take more than 7 days to "do it all" which will entice their average visitor to want to come back each year. Once that buildout is complete, my suggestion is then they can move into maintenance updates and ride replacements and should have very little need for major expansion. They would not need to keep putting massive funds into their parks at that point.

I do see that they are losing repeat visitors, and they can't grow into infinity. If people start choosing other vacations, the current expansion in guests will start to turn the other way.

 

[Teamubr]

will entice their average visitor to want to come back each year...

they can't grow into infinity.

What is the percentage of people that come every year or even every other vs first time visitors? The annual group obviously wants something new to make the trip "worthwhile". The first time group doesn't know the difference. The marketing around a new attraction may entice some new visitors that would not have considered Disney, but a Disney trip has become a cultural right of passage for middle class families and they aren't going to know new from old. Disney marketing (and suburban society) has convinced us that you're a bad parent if you don't take your little darlings once. As long as Disney can keep the guilt trip going, they will maintain that steady stream of new customers. What else does the US have to compete with that for the under 10 year old experience?

j

 

[rteetz]

What is the percentage of people that come every year or even every other vs first time visitors? The annual group obviously wants something new to make the trip "worthwhile". The first time group doesn't know the difference. The marketing around a new attraction may entice some new visitors that would not have considered Disney, but a Disney trip has become a cultural right of passage for middle class families and they aren't going to know new from old. Disney marketing (and suburban society) has convinced us that you're a bad parent if you don't take your little darlings once. As long as Disney can keep the guilt trip going, they will maintain that steady stream of new customers. What else does the US have to compete with that for the under 10 year old experience?

j

I don't think anyone knows those numbers except disney. With that said disney always tends to focus on those first time or once in a lifetime visitors because they tend to spend the most compared to those who come back repeatedly.

 

[rteetz]

Here is a new trailer for inside out from pixar

This movie looks very promising

 

[George4]

With that said disney always tends to focus on those first time or once in a lifetime visitors because they tend to spend the most compared to those who come back repeatedly.

If that's true, it would explain why they have been content with the rate of construction at WDW and DL and been more concerned with the expansion in the far east.

 

[rteetz]

If that's true, it would explain why they have been content with the rate of construction at WDW and DL and been more concerned with the expansion in the far east.

It is true that is no doubt. DL does a lot more little things because that visitor base is very local heavy where as Florida is very tourist heavy. China is basically a brand new market for Disney they are not well established there.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I guess I have to admit that I'm not being very clear in my point, or not articulating it well. I do not mean at all that these need to be ongoing upgrades, nor that they need enough to keep me busy for my 2-3 week vacation. I simply mean they need one big expansion (probably tiered in over a several years) at the three secondary parks so that they start to become a near equal draw to MK. In the process, they will create a resort that will take more than 7 days to "do it all" which will entice their average visitor to want to come back each year. Once that buildout is complete, my suggestion is then they can move into maintenance updates and ride replacements and should have very little need for major expansion. They would not need to keep putting massive funds into their parks at that point.

I do see that they are losing repeat visitors, and they can't grow into infinity. If people start choosing other vacations, the current expansion in guests will start to turn the other way.

I love your thoughts and approach...the problem is that the numbers didnt break in a way that makes it ever a remote possibility...

The 97 average length of stay number was just shy of 6...about 5.9 or so...
So evil michael kept the peddle to the meddle through the "Disney decade" and poured in on animal kingdom and hotels all over the place...think that number would go to 8...maybe more...it seemed logical at the time.

I mean...look at the "throw ins" we got in the 90's... With little fanfare...
West side, wide world, boardwalk...and blizzard - probably still maybe the coolest idea they have ever done.

But then the number came back at 6.5-6.7...

Screech...grinding halt. If you notice all the construction stopped right there...
The internal philosophy was that they had spent enough...now all of a sudden it was about making Disneyland and Tokyo and euro "like Disney world"...and china of course. Not as if that has worked out well either...they might have saved/made money had they just doubled down in Orlando...

Animal kingdom... Which TDO thought would really be perhaps the second biggest draw on property...was viewed now as a "filler"...locking people into the property and their park hoppers.

I don't think they've ever recovered/changed. That's your wdw. Which bold 80's sitcom man bob Iger went full bore with the one time "we've got em...screw em!" Tact.

Here we be.

The other problem...as you wave your flag, pledge allegiance, and throw a scrap of meat to your pet bald eagle...
Is the work "ethic" of the USA. Longer hours, diminishing return, guilt or elimination regarding vacations.

As I've said before - in direct contradiction to every labor study ever conducted.

Probably the biggest dissapointment of my adult life is the fact that nobody has given any blowback to it...
Just accept that you're nuts for the nutcracker.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

What is the percentage of people that come every year or even every other vs first time visitors? The annual group obviously wants something new to make the trip "worthwhile". The first time group doesn't know the difference. The marketing around a new attraction may entice some new visitors that would not have considered Disney, but a Disney trip has become a cultural right of passage for middle class families and they aren't going to know new from old. Disney marketing (and suburban society) has convinced us that you're a bad parent if you don't take your little darlings once. As long as Disney can keep the guilt trip going, they will maintain that steady stream of new customers. What else does the US have to compete with that for the under 10 year old experience?

j

Now? It's hard to tell...

But I can tell you that increasing the repeat customer was walt Disney worlds primary strategy - from the top down - 15 years ago...

And it was a much better strategy for everyone. Because it required more committment and dedication from the merchant to all the customers...
The tourists/ one timers would benefit just as much as the salty New Jersey DVCers who realized at 9:15 he's out of ice cream and...
Errr...nevermind.

But we keep posting updates on walkways at downtown and them filling in the swan lake with quickcrete...

As if those are "good" things...but I think all of us know that they are not...

It's doubling the amount of sardines in the can

 

[George4]

he 97 average length of stay number was just shy of 6...about 5.9 or so...
So evil michael kept the peddle to the meddle through the "Disney decade" and poured in on animal kingdom and hotels all over the place...think that number would go to 8...maybe more...it seemed logical at the time.

But then the number came back at 6.5-6.7...

Let's say that's true. 50 million people each staying one more day at WDW. Ticket plus food plus hotel (although maybe 1/4 stay on site) is pretty substantial. $10 extra for the extra day, guess at $35 for food (probably low, but still) plus say $25 for a reasonable share of a hotel room for one person - on average. That's $70 per person for that extra day, times 50 million WDW visitors, that's 3.5 billion dollars - per year for the extra day. It would seem spending some money to secure those extra funds might be worth it. Give people the vacation that they feel they are paying for - seven or more days worth of parks to visit. If you build it.....they will come. For that much money, I am surprised that Disney wasn't drooling over adding more stuff to their smaller parks.

Maybe you're right though, and they just decided it wasn't worth it because they would never get that 7th day for all the reasons you mentioned. At the potential of $3.5 billion per year, I would have thought it was worth a shot, at least in one of the parks to see the outcome. But maybe it is a pipe dream. Perhaps this is the best we're going to get from them. I hope not, but I guess we'll see.

The items listed in the 5-10 year RID comprehensive plan are enlightening the potential they are willing to consider (additional hotel rooms especially) give some idea for the potential build at WDW, and it seems like they are positioning themselves for around 20,000 additional visitors per day OR trying to move 20,000 additional visitors onto Disney property instead of off-site. Either way, the place just gets more crowded.

 

[Teamubr]

Disney always tends to focus on those first time or once in a lifetime visitors because they tend to spend the most compared to those who come back repeatedly.

But I can tell you that increasing the repeat customer was Walt Disney worlds primary strategy - from the top down - 15 years ago...And it was a much better strategy for everyone. Because it required more committment and dedication from the merchant to all the customers...

LOL,
History tells the story. 15 years ago was a much different climate and I agree, the Disney strategy was focused more towards us, the base that keeps coming back. Reetz nailed it though. We weren't spending enough to justify the strategy of ongoing expansion and updates.

I actually think not adding new rides plays to the new strategy of drawing in the first time visitor. For someone considering bringing their 4-10 year olds to experience what they did when they were that age, they want/expect it to be just the way it was when their parents brought them. "New" doesn't compute to their memories of what Disney World is/was. They also have 15-20 years of Disney marketing to reinforce "the way it was". Disney runs a risk of disappointing these first time families if the place doesn't match their perception or childhood memories.

Do "as little as possible" not only saves a lot of money, but keeps the once in a life time group happy. Looking at it that way, I guess I should be pleased we are getting Avatar, SW and likely something Pixar. After all, change is an evil and wicked thing.

j

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I don't disagree with anything you said...

However the strategy still sucks... Is frankly low class...and could torpedo the whole thing down the road

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Let's say that's true. 50 million people each staying one more day at WDW. Ticket plus food plus hotel (although maybe 1/4 stay on site) is pretty substantial. $10 extra for the extra day, guess at $35 for food (probably low, but still) plus say $25 for a reasonable share of a hotel room for one person - on average. That's $70 per person for that extra day, times 50 million WDW visitors, that's 3.5 billion dollars - per year for the extra day. It would seem spending some money to secure those extra funds might be worth it. Give people the vacation that they feel they are paying for - seven or more days worth of parks to visit. If you build it.....they will come. For that much money, I am surprised that Disney wasn't drooling over adding more stuff to their smaller parks.

Maybe you're right though, and they just decided it wasn't worth it because they would never get that 7th day for all the reasons you mentioned. At the potential of $3.5 billion per year, I would have thought it was worth a shot, at least in one of the parks to see the outcome. But maybe it is a pipe dream. Perhaps this is the best we're going to get from them. I hope not, but I guess we'll see.

The items listed in the 5-10 year RID comprehensive plan are enlightening the potential they are willing to consider (additional hotel rooms especially) give some idea for the potential build at WDW, and it seems like they are positioning themselves for around 20,000 additional visitors per day OR trying to move 20,000 additional visitors onto Disney property instead of off-site. Either way, the place just gets more crowded.

I'm not disputing your mathematics...

I'm just gently telling you the value placed on 1. Average stay
2. Average spending per guest.

I can explain the theory of relativity to Iger and his highly unqualified upper lieutenants...
But at the end of the day...those two numbers disprove any theory