Bean Counters and shortsightedness

[Miffy]

The simple fact is this: Disney is not pricing MOST people of the parks. The parks are still crowded year round and they are profitable. Somehow, even during economically slow times (maybe overuse of credit cards- the American way) guests are still coming. Disney faces a real challenge in this regard. You can’t have low prices and low crowds. Pick your poison.

Ahem. Low prices? Seriously? You are living in a completely different universe from mine if you think the current pricing at WDW is low.

Also, WDW apparently doesn't think the parks are too crowded. If they did, they'd stop the sale of APs, end resort discounts, and they never ever would have reinstituted bounceback offers, which, btw, are actually better than they used to be. Just to name a few things off the top of my head.

 

[Miffy]

But you said they would cover the profit Disney makes so does it matter that no one else buys the products?

Now if you are saying one customer will pay a lot but not cover the entire profit that is a different comparison to what the previous posts have said.

Those posts have said crowds are down, but revenue is up. If only one person covers the same amount of revenue or total profit, why is that bad for Disney.

I actually didn't say they'd cover the profit Disney makes, but, even if they did. One customer alone could never keep Disney afloat. There'd be such negative PR that Disney would never survive. And my impression of people with that much disposable income is that on the off chance that they would pay that billion bucks for Disney once, they'd never do it again. So what would Disney do after that? Go bankrupt.

 

[tom1944]

You are changing they hypothetical.

The concept of less crowds but greater revenue/profit is not a problem.

If it can be done with only one customer that does not change the concept.

Disney is also not locked into keeping the status quo if they see a negative impact. Clearly, they are looking to identify the correct mix of crowds to revenue/profits.

 

[tjkraz]

OK. I'll answer that question.

Because if there were only that one family who could go to the parks, Disney would start losing money hand over fist, because everyone else who was left out would stop buying Disney merchandise, boycott Disney movies, end their D+ subscriptions, etc., etc., etc. Because they would be furious at Disney for doing this and Disney's reputation would be dead.

That's why.

Well, first the idea that there would only be "one family" visiting the Disney Parks is the most ridiculous straw man I've read in a long time. (Disney actually has mechanisms for renting out an entire theme park. Even wealthy people don't do that for obvious reasons.)

Beyond that, the idea that the theme parks need to be affordable in order for consumers to gravitate toward anything Disney branded is simply not true. There are plenty of people who watch Disney / Pixar / Marvel films in theaters, watch Disney Channel, buy their kids Disney t-shirts / toys / books and have Disney+ subscriptions who cannot afford to make regular trips to the theme parks. Yes there is some additive effect, but I think it's being vastly overstated here. Many families purchase Disney products & services without having an affinity for the theme parks (or the means to visit). And others visit the theme parks without being card-carrying Disney fans.

 

[rdevans_2000]

Ahem. Low prices? Seriously? You are living in a completely different universe from mine if you think the current pricing at WDW is low.

Also, WDW apparently doesn't think the parks are too crowded. If they did, they'd stop the sale of APs, end resort discounts, and they never ever would have reinstituted bounceback offers, which, btw, are actually better than they used to be. Just to name a few things off the top of my head.

I didn't say we have low prices. We have very high prices. Sky

Ahem. Low prices? Seriously? You are living in a completely different universe from mine if you think the current pricing at WDW is low.

Also, WDW apparently doesn't think the parks are too crowded. If they did, they'd stop the sale of APs, end resort discounts, and they never ever would have reinstituted bounceback offers, which, btw, are actually better than they used to be. Just to name a few things off the top of my head.

We definitely don't have low prices. We have very high prices. In my post I said we can't simultaneously have low prices AND low crowds. I think it's safe to say we all dislike the constant price hikes over the past several years. Even Bob Iger previously admitted that the price increases were problematic for guests. But, cutting prices typically raises crowd levels... which most of dislike as well. So it's often a trade off.

 

[Minnie1222]

I actually didn't say they'd cover the profit Disney makes, but, even if they did. One customer alone could never keep Disney afloat. There'd be such negative PR that Disney would never survive. And my impression of people with that much disposable income is that on the off chance that they would pay that billion bucks for Disney once, they'd never do it again. So what would Disney do after that? Go bankrupt.

That was a hypothetical situation posted by another member and it's not to be taken literally.

What about charging 8 people $10 each, instead of 10 people at $8? They're still making the same amount while reducing the guest volume. They can further cut cost by having 20% less staff.

 

[DisFanDad]

I didn't say we have low prices. We have very high prices. Sky

We definitely don't have low prices. We have very high prices. In my post I said we can't simultaneously have low prices AND low crowds. I think it's safe to say we all dislike the constant price hikes over the past several years. Even Bob Iger previously admitted that the price increases were problematic for guests. But, cutting prices typically raises crowd levels... which most of dislike as well. So it's often a trade off.

Lower prices - increase capacity. It's actually pretty simple. This is what disney has not done sufficiently for - 20 bloody years - add capacity. They've added some, for sure. But a LOT of the "additions" have come at the expense of other capacity - closing lands, areas, attractions, to build new areas attractions. Not real capacity increases. Things like Tron, Pandora, Remy, those added capacity. SWGE, Fantasy land 2, Guardians, Frozen, etc ... not so much. You could lower the prices, and add capacity and crowds would be lower and prices cheaper at the same time. It doesn't have to be a trade off.

 

[tjkraz]

SWGE, Fantasy land 2, Guardians, Frozen, etc ... not so much. You could lower the prices, and add capacity and crowds would be lower and prices cheaper at the same time. It doesn't have to be a trade off.

Not sure I buy the idea that still having Lights, Motors, Action, Mickey & Minnie's houses and Ellen's Energy Adventure would add any meaningful capacity to those parks. Certainly not to the point where you would want to lower prices and encourage greater crowds. The net result would be even more people in the parks, most of whom still want to ride Rise of the Resistance, Slinky, TRON, Mine Train, GOTG, Test Track, etc.

 

[Jrb1979]

Not sure I buy the idea that still having Lights, Motors, Action, Mickey & Minnie's houses and Living with the Land would add any meaningful capacity to those parks. Certainly not to the point where you would want to lower prices and encourage greater crowds. The net result would be even more people in the parks, most of whom still want to ride Rise of the Resistance, Slinky, TRON, Mine Train, GOTG, Test Track, etc.

Not necessarily. What the parks need is more attractions on the level of Dumbo.

 

[tjkraz]

Not necessarily. What the parks need is more attractions on the level of Dumbo.

It wouldn't hurt, but Dumbo-type attractions aren't what primarily draw people into the parks. They are a nice side distraction, but not what is prompting folks to buy a ticket.

Consider Hollywood Studios. In the last ~8 years, it added Rise, Falcon, Slinky, Saucers and Runaway Railway. Demand for all of those attractions is high (Aliens less so than others.) Demand for ToT and Rock N Rollercoaster remains high. The main beneficiary of this expansion was Star Tours, which is now routinely a <15 minute wait.

Even if the Backlot Tour and LMA had remained today, the situation wouldn't be much different. Pretty much everyone visiting the park expects to be able to ride some combination of Rise, Falcon, Slinky, etc. Backlot Tour and LMA are not consolation prizes that most would consider acceptable. Nor are other things on the level of Dumbo.

At the end of the day, I don't think it's as simple as "build more attractions and wait times will go down." (Much less could the park afford to lower prices and increase crowds.) If LMA still existed today, there's nobody bypassing the line for Slinky or Falcon to see the stunt show instead. Nobody is walking out of the park claiming "well, the lines were too long for the things I really wanted to do, but at least I got to ride Backlot Tour / Ellen's Energy Adventure / Dumbo"

 

[Jrb1979]

It wouldn't hurt, but Dumbo-type attractions aren't what primarily draw people into the parks. They are a nice side distraction, but not what is prompting folks to buy a ticket.

Consider Hollywood Studios. In the last ~8 years, it added Rise, Falcon, Slinky, Saucers and Runaway Railway. Demand for all of those attractions is high (Aliens less so than others.) Demand for ToT and Rock N Rollercoaster remains high. The main beneficiary of this expansion was Star Tours, which is now routinely a <15 minute wait.

Even if the Backlot Tour and LMA had remained today, the situation wouldn't be much different. Pretty much everyone visiting the park expects to be able to ride some combination of Rise, Falcon, Slinky, etc. Backlot Tour and LMA are not consolation prizes that most would consider acceptable. Nor are other things on the level of Dumbo.

At the end of the day, I don't think it's as simple as "build more attractions and wait times will go down." (Much less could the park afford to lower prices and increase crowds.) If LMA still existed today, there's nobody bypassing the line for Slinky or Falcon to see the stunt show instead. Nobody is walking out of the park claiming "well, the lines were too long for the things I really wanted to do, but at least I got to ride Backlot Tour / Ellen's Energy Adventure / Dumbo"

That's the point with more Dumbo type rides. They aren't meant to draw more people to the parks but to add more things to do.

I always go back to the Cedar Point number of attractions. They have over 70 attractions in 1 park. WDW has 48 across 4 parks. The biggest issue WDW has not enough attractions in each park.

 

[BrianL]

That's the point with more Dumbo type rides. They aren't meant to draw more people to the parks but to add more things to do.

I always go back to the Cedar Point number of attractions. They have over 70 attractions in 1 park. WDW has 48 across 4 parks. The biggest issue WDW has not enough attractions in each park.

Yes, those things serve a purpose. They can glitz them up a litlte bit, but they are important for people with younger kids, etc. and are needed. I said previously that they need to build some stuff that, while good, would not be what people rush to at rope-drop. Some solid C-Ticket rides that can eat some people up. A good onmimover hasn't been built in a while.

 

[tjkraz]

That's the point with more Dumbo type rides. They aren't meant to draw more people to the parks but to add more things to do.

I always go back to the Cedar Point number of attractions. They have over 70 attractions in 1 park. WDW has 48 across 4 parks. The biggest issue WDW has not enough attractions in each park.

Magic Kingdom has more rides than Animal Kingdom. It also routinely has hour-long wait times for TRON, Mine Train, Space, Splash, BTMR, Peter Pan, Jungle Cruise, even Buzz and Haunted Mansion. The presence of Dumbo, Flying Carpets, Swiss Family Treehouse and Tiki Room doesn't do much to satisfy people who expect to ride the others.

It helps, but I'm skeptical about the degree. Certainly not to the point of lowering prices and increasing crowds, as the poster I was responding to suggested.

Ariel's Undersea Adventures is probably the best recent example of what you're suggesting. It's a pleasant, high capacity C-Ticket addition to the park. It's also something you can be on-and-off in about 20 minutes total. Drop that into Hollywood Studios and it does improve the overall experience. But it doesn't lessen the desire to ride every other attraction in the park. And even a well-themed omnimover would moderately increase demand (crowds) for the park. Ariel kinda gets lost in MK. But add a Star Wars omnimover to DHS, an Encanto omnimover to DAK or a Mary Poppins omnimover to Epcot and there would be some uptick, IMO.

 

[Minnie1222]

It would be nice if they could bring Skyway back and have it moved slowly around the park, any park. I don't know how they would prevent people from standing or jumping though.

 

[DisFanDad]

Not sure I buy the idea that still having Lights, Motors, Action, Mickey & Minnie's houses and Ellen's Energy Adventure would add any meaningful capacity to those parks. Certainly not to the point where you would want to lower prices and encourage greater crowds. The net result would be even more people in the parks, most of whom still want to ride Rise of the Resistance, Slinky, TRON, Mine Train, GOTG, Test Track, etc.

I generally understand your underlying premise - you are wrong technically - those had capacity, and replacing them with new things adds no capacity - which is the issue. Disney SHOULD be continuing to update things like that, AND add capacity.

But you are wrong on your underlying premise and the technical premise on one - Lights Motors Action ATE PEOPLE. It had thousands of people attending, for like a 40 minute show. And people absolutely showed up for that thing - it was crazy. And it COULD run up to 6 times a day - I think it generally ran less like 2 or 3 times a day, but still ate people up.

But again, the point is they could be keeping attractions fresh and appealing, and adding capacity, while keeping prices low. They certainly make enough to do so.

 

[tjkraz]

I generally understand your underlying premise - you are wrong technically - those had capacity, and replacing them with new things adds no capacity - which is the issue. Disney SHOULD be continuing to update things like that, AND add capacity.

But you are wrong on your underlying premise and the technical premise on one - Lights Motors Action ATE PEOPLE. It had thousands of people attending, for like a 40 minute show. And people absolutely showed up for that thing - it was crazy. And it COULD run up to 6 times a day - I think it generally ran less like 2 or 3 times a day, but still ate people up.

But again, the point is they could be keeping attractions fresh and appealing, and adding capacity, while keeping prices low. They certainly make enough to do so.

In order to make a difference, the added capacity has to be meaningful to guests. That's where something like LMA almost certainly comes up short. If we view this from an "all things being equal" perspective, 5000 people sitting in the LMA theater means fewer people waiting for Rise, Falcon, Slinky, etc. But all things are not equal. Theme parks are very complex systems and guests would respond in a variety of ways.

If LMA were still around, IMO most of its guests would be drawn from other tertiary attractions like Indiana Jones, Beauty and the Beast, Frozen singalong, Playhouse Disney, Muppetvision, etc. If a 2000-person average crowd at Indiana Jones becomes 1500 because some of them are pulled over to LMA, the impact is lessened.

Some guests may extend their visits longer for something like LMA, which again doesn't really have a positive impact on wait times. If an average visit of 6 hours becomes 6.5 hours because some guests add LMA to their day, it doesn't shorten the lines elsewhere. Though there could be a nominal improvement in guest satisfaction.

And let's not pretend that LMA would play host to 10,000 guests per day in 2 shows...much less 30k in 6 shows. The demand simply did not exist.

Don't get me wrong...I love to have options. If LMA still existed today, I'd go see it once every 10 years or so. (It's been at least that long since I've seen Indy, but I'm probably due.) I'm all in favor of having these tertiary experiences in the parks. But you can't just throw out any amount of capacity and assume it would have a positive effect on wait times, crowd levels or guest satisfaction. That's why "Oh, Canada" doesn't start running at 8am and why Tiki Room isn't open during extended evening hours.

At the end of the day, almost nobody paying for admission to Disney's Hollywood Studios would have the mindset of "well, lines were too long for Rise of the Resistance, Slinky and Rock N Rollercoaster, but my visit was just as satisfying thanks to Lights, Motors, Action." It's not a suitable replacement for other experiences. It does nothing to lessen demand for the "must-have" attractions, and brings little additive value to a day at the park.

 

[New Mouse]

In order to make a difference, the added capacity has to be meaningful to guests. That's where something like LMA almost certainly comes up short. If we view this from an "all things being equal" perspective, 5000 people sitting in the LMA theater means fewer people waiting for Rise, Falcon, Slinky, etc. But all things are not equal. Theme parks are very complex systems and guests would respond in a variety of ways.

If LMA were still around, IMO most of its guests would be drawn from other tertiary attractions like Indiana Jones, Beauty and the Beast, Frozen singalong, Playhouse Disney, Muppetvision, etc. If a 2000-person average crowd at Indiana Jones becomes 1500 because some of them are pulled over to LMA, the impact is lessened.

Some guests may extend their visits longer for something like LMA, which again doesn't really have a positive impact on wait times. If an average visit of 6 hours becomes 6.5 hours because some guests add LMA to their day, it doesn't shorten the lines elsewhere. Though there could be a nominal improvement in guest satisfaction.

And let's not pretend that LMA would play host to 10,000 guests per day in 2 shows...much less 30k in 6 shows. The demand simply did not exist.

Don't get me wrong...I love to have options. If LMA still existed today, I'd go see it once every 10 years or so. (It's been at least that long since I've seen Indy, but I'm probably due.) I'm all in favor of having these tertiary experiences in the parks. But you can't just throw out any amount of capacity and assume it would have a positive effect on wait times, crowd levels or guest satisfaction. That's why "Oh, Canada" doesn't start running at 8am and why Tiki Room isn't open during extended evening hours.

At the end of the day, almost nobody paying for admission to Disney's Hollywood Studios would have the mindset of "well, lines were too long for Rise of the Resistance, Slinky and Rock N Rollercoaster, but my visit was just as satisfying thanks to Lights, Motors, Action." It's not a suitable replacement for other experiences. It does nothing to lessen demand for the "must-have" attractions, and brings little additive value to a day at the park.

Lights motors action ate people for an extended period of time. There's no real debate to be had about that one.

 

[DisFanDad]

Lights motors action ate people for an extended period of time. There's no real debate to be had about that one.

It's absolutely nonsense to argue it didn't. The show was 40 mins, plus people lined up and showed up early, and then departing took time. And it regularly sat thousands, I don't think it filled up all 5000 seats, but to just suggest this didn't have an impact on wait times or demand for other attractions is absolute insanity.

 

[tjkraz]

It's absolutely nonsense to argue it didn't. The show was 40 mins, plus people lined up and showed up early, and then departing took time. And it regularly sat thousands, I don't think it filled up all 5000 seats, but to just suggest this didn't have an impact on wait times or demand for other attractions is absolute insanity.

To imply that it would draw equally from all attractions is also insanity. As is any suggestion that day guests would view LMA as a suitable substitute for riding Rise of the Resistance, Slinky, Tower of Terror or about 5-6 other attractions.

 

[New Mouse]

What you are sharing makes no sense. If someone is at lma they are not at something else. A good portion of guests saw lma. It doesn't matter if it's a substitute or not quality wise.