Originally Posted By SFH >>if the company is so consumed by the bottom line, what makes you think that any additional revenues they take in will be put back into the park instead of going to the shareholders?<< There is an incentive to invest money to make more money. By growing the capacity and value of the attractions, the company brings in more revenue. It they don't invest in a new attraction or upgrading an attraction, then the company don't see an increase in attraction revenue. There always has to be SOME payoff, so not all of the money is going to be reinvested. Only a portion needs to be to give the guests more and to generate another "product" (that's the way it is thought of). SFH
Originally Posted By olegc I read over Ken's article twice - and I have posted to several other places and had a discource with another web site author on this subject. Ken makes great strides in trying to address both sides of the "market" which other authors failed to do. Below are my points of rebuttal and I hope they can be used for more discussions. 1) there still is this nagging feeling that the parks could ultimately turn in to a upper-middle class only place (for you Dick Cheney - wannabes out there). 2) Ken's point about Tomorrowland being a ghost town is actually an after effect of an attempt by then-management to create a new land. It could be tied to the POP-investment angle but it should have been a big warning about what DCA was going to be. Using the ghost town angle for a point NOW is a little like a self fulfilling prophecy. 3) DCA - can we really say that DCA was less ambitious than EPCOT and others? when the park first came out there were all sorts of people, even here on LP, telling everyone that it was THE SAME as when those other parks openned. Trying not to overdo it right away. Now we're using this as a point of fact for another argument. Hmm - usually you're not supposed to do that in debates. 4) Passport to DCA is same as Disneyland - This is an interesting point - since even with some ride closures the overall available value of rides/shows/things to do/shop at Disneyland is still more than at the park. Remember - they supposedly thought DCA was of MORE value and actually disallowed annual pass sales to occur for the new park. Does that imply they are promoting AP programs and POP-type sales or are they looking for the resort vacationer. 5)Deep admission discounts. Ken - are you blaming the POP system for these deep discounts? I can also argue that they are deep discounting since they perceived value of the park is much less in the consumers eyes than what the TDA execs think, which means there is not enough there to do for full price, and I can also argue that this is a failed marketing message to the extended stay resort guest. 6) which brings me to this. When they first planned a second gate, and a new hotel, the word was (from various sources so it seemed like it was correct) that the whole marketing plan of the park was to make it like WDW- a destination resort that would cater to more extended stay patrons and less to locals. But not that fewer locals would come - in fact their goal was to keep the numbers the same but have the extended say guest numbers go up. So - if I were to examine this without any historic understanding of the park's operations, I would say it was a complete misunderstanding of the market and the message. ken states in his articule himself that DLR is in a megalotropolis so how long will people stay for extended periods. My own informal poll of guests when I visit the park always comes up with something like "we're staying a week - but only three days at the parks; we want to see Hollywood, the beaches, shopping, san diego..." So the idea that they planned this correctly for out of towners is way off. I can't see how that can really corrolate to a comment such as "we don't want to make an investment since we won't see that return". That is short sighted on the operations aspect and only looked at capital investment up front. PFP will HELP target investments in future rides but I truly believe that this requires a lot more analysis and not simply two or three new ideas to shrink the park. I am a market that should be addressed. If not I can go elsewhere. I don't now since I still find value at the DLR. It's getting close though. My bellweather may be the 50th celebraitons. Keep up the good work, Ken
Originally Posted By Brian Noble There is a huge difference between food services and attractions. Food service costs (especially at volume) are dominated by marginal costs---costs that go up in proportion to how much you sell. Attractions are dominated by fixed costs---costs that you pay no matter how many or how few "buy" a ride on the attraction. In other words, the money you lose on each entree cannot be made up in volume.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger The material costs might be a greater proportion on foods, but I think the analogy still stands as an excellent one.
Originally Posted By a1stav The problem with the food analogy is that the pay one price vacation including food it HUGE in the vacation market. The entire cruse indestry is based opon it. Mexico "all inclusive" trips are very popular, and even Disney has tryed there hand at it with there "food and fun" pass.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger I don't see that as a problem. That's proof that they could actually decide to take that route. Now if they'll just do it at DLR, we can look at the results in 15 years and talk about it (Someone had better get a count of the churro and popcorn carts now.)
Originally Posted By imagineer1985 I disagree with your points on this new system. Here we go... “The reality is, under the current “pay one price (POP) only†system, there is no direct, short-term financial incentive to keep many attractions fully operational or open at all, to “plus†attractions, to add attractions to existing parks instead of opening up new parks with a separate admission price.†This is untrue. We all know that when Disney Builds a new attraction the theme park that the attraction and even surrounding Disney Theme Parks will have an increase in attendance. This is a short term boast in admission and money brought in by the people buying food souvenirs and other items. If there was no benifit in “Plussing†attractions, why would WE have Haunted Mansion Holiday, Small world Holiday the “Relaunch†of Space Mountain The “Plus†of the Tree house into Tarzan and the “Plussing†of Redwood Creek into the Magic of Brother bear opening Saturday. Furthermore Since DCA has opened 2 years ago they have added “Who wants to be a Millionaireâ€, the whole new area Flicks Fun Faire, and we also Have Tower of Terror opening in a few months! The insentive is to make more people come to the park due to a new awesome attraction or in a bugs land case: to give the people what they asked for. “If you’re paying the same price to get into the park when three major attractions are closed for renovation as you are when they are open, what is the direct (financial) incentive for park management to keep those refurbishment downtimes short?†If people have less to do they will leace early and not spend as much money on dinner, snacks, on-ride photos and other surveniers. Plus the fact that if everything is closed people will not come. Thus not spending any money. “Imagineer: “Yes, but the live show won’t have nearly the capacity that this new ride will have, or the excitement.†President: “What does that matter? We’re still getting the same number of people through the gate, and that’s where the money is made.â€â€œ Have you ever seen a show boast attendance as much as Indiana Jones did? “Imagineer: "Don't you care about making this a better park?" President: "Of course I do, but I answer to the CEO, who answers to shareholders. Planning for long term growth is good, but I need to show higher profits NOW, or I'll be replaced with someone who will." Imagineer: "Don't you care about making this a better park?" President: "Of course I do, but I answer to the CEO, who answers to shareholders. Planning for long term growth is good, but I need to show higher profits NOW, or I'll be replaced with someone who will." “ So isn’t the problem with the shareholders and the CEO and not with the Park Admission policy? And if it is the problem with the CEO than why is it that Walt Disney world just opened Mission Space... is also adding Stitch escape, the stunt car Show, Expedition Everest, And DCA’s most popular attraction: Soarin’ The problem is clearly not CEO’s it is or should I say “WAS†Direct Management! Hopefully Matt Can save the day! “As I said in a previous column, something has to be done if you agree that many of the things listed above are problems, because the things I listed make sense under the POP system: "E" Tickets are expensive,†Why Are they Building Tower of Terror than? “and it is easier to recoup the costs of less expensive attractions; all of Tomorrowland could be closed and the cost of the passport stay the same;†True But people would stop coming/Leave early and spread negative press to all of there friends. “building attractions in "new" places rather than replacing existing attractions makes the park more costly to operate;†Ok, an attraction is not popular! REPLACE IT!!!! Why waste Prime Real estate on attractions that are outdated and not popular! Even Walt Disney replaced attractions! Ok, Country Bears Was NOT popular! So they Replaced IT!!! would you rather have the attraction sit there and have two people watch it per hour? “spending money to improve existing attractions is hard to justify since there is no incentive for management to get more people to ride any particular attraction, or any attraction at all;†Well than What is with Tarzans Treehouse? Haunted mansion holiday? Redwood Creek and Brother bear? Should I go on? The insentive is that they can spend minimal and advertise the old attraction as a new one! “a separate Main Gate passport costs the same regardless of how many attractions are in the park, how many are operating, or the nature of the attractions.†Yes but if people are not satisfied with the amount of rides they will stay home and the park will lose money. “Do you think management is happy about that? If someone is waiting around for discounts before they will go to your theme park, how much money are they likely to spend after they get through your gate?†Which Is Exactly Why dropping admission to say $5 is a Bad IDEA!!! “On the other hand, for what amounts to a few hundred dollars a year, there are tens of thousands of others who are crowding up walkways, taking virtual places in line (FastPass), taking actual places in line, and taking seats in attractions and restaurants that, theoretically, would otherwise go to several different people who would be spending more money.†First if they are spending time in Restaurants they are spending money. Furthermore if they dropped admission to $5 The Park would be ridiculously crowded and would become a huge teen hangout and would become a disaster... Ok well I need to go now but I will be back to debating the article soon.
Originally Posted By TheBigChurro "3. Disneyland was always crowded whether it had coupons or not." This isn't true. Before the advent of cheap aps and local discounts, DL used to have an off season that started almost immediately after labor day, and except for holidays, lasted well until Memorial Day. And I still say that pay-for-play, whether implemented with tickets, smartcards, or cold-hard-cash, is a dumb idea. blech.
Originally Posted By visionary I saw Ken tonight at that house in Studio City that goes all out for Halloween .. I'd like to say lots .. but I'm barely holding my eyes open .. and I don't know what's typing the keyboard .... But he UNDERSTATED what nice little treats this house had to decorate!! Some of the tricks of the trade we see in that ride we call the Haunted Mansion folks. For LPers who live in the general LA area .. and don't mind taking the drive into the Valley .... "Totally" "fer sure" stop by in Studio City and check out the house! You'll be glad you did. Just a couple minutes off the Coldwater Canyon exit off the Ventura Freeway. Because the effects were only 20% working due to the rain ... Ken couldn't show me much ... but tomorrow (Nov 1st), they should be showing this. I can't wait to take pics!!
Originally Posted By woody From post 10 >>Just a couple of things... >>I'm not calling for the elimination of annual passes. >>I'm not calling for the elminitation of what would amount to a "pay one price" alternative. >>SFH You sidestepped my argument completely in all my points. How can you have a "Pay for Play" concept without eliminating a PAY ONE PRICE or ANNUAL PASSPORTS? It isn't possible. Without the full implementation of PAY FOR PLAY, there would be a tiered ticket policy where people can choose their preferred ticket plan. What will they choose? Most will choose the more expensive Unlimited Ride ticket. However, even if a majority selected the PFP plan, the minority of unlimited tickets will undermine the PFP system. Please explain what you mean by your message. Thanks.
Originally Posted By woody SFH: You had these specific quotes "I'm not saying that annual passports should go away. It is essentially a "frequent customer" program, and frequent customers can be of great value." "Also, some form of "unlimited passport" (POP) should be available, as there will be days where most people find that to be the best value." "I'd like to see more choices in the pricing at Disney parks, and more variety in the offerings" If more choices is the goal, how will the mix of ticket offerings support the PFP plan? It will create lots of confusion for the guests who will ask tons of questions about what ticket media to select. I guess Disney can "thank" the guests by confusing them and offering them incentives to spend more money. How convenient!!! If I'm confused about things and if I believe things are more expensive through perception, I may just decide to sidestep the whole deal. Even if I'm rich (you should read the book The Millionaire Next Door by Thomas J. Stanley), I would not spend more money than necessary. I would demand value. Disney is becoming a rich man's Walmart. Imagine going into Walmart and paying $10 for a bar of soap... that's Disney's deteriorating reputation. $47 for a closed Tomorrowland. The SmartCard idea will be called a scam by the customer. You can expect it.
Originally Posted By SFH >>How can you have a "Pay for Play" concept without eliminating a PAY ONE PRICE or ANNUAL PASSPORTS? It isn't possible.<< Sure it is. You simply offer all three option. You set the prices, paint the signs, make the brochures, and offer them. There's no law against it, there's nothing in science that would indicate this is impossible. >>Without the full implementation of PAY FOR PLAY, there would be a tiered ticket policy where people can choose their preferred ticket plan. What will they choose?<< Whichever is most convenient for them. Some people visiting Walt Disney World Resort from across the country opt for annual passes, instead of the 5-day Park Hopper, for instance, even though they may make only one trip (but a long one). >>Most will choose the more expensive Unlimited Ride ticket.<< There's nothing wrong with that. >>However, even if a majority selected the PFP plan, the minority of unlimited tickets will undermine the PFP system.<< No it won't. Disney will still be tracking attraction usage, and some unlimited passport guests will get "more value" than they paid for, and some will get less. Most will get about what they paid for. >>If more choices is the goal, how will the mix of ticket offerings support the PFP plan?<< It doesn't need to support any plan. It just needs to give guests a choice and at the same time prove that specific attractions generate a set amount of revenue. >>It will create lots of confusion for the guests who will ask tons of questions about what ticket media to select.<< Guests already ask a ton of questions, like "I'm here for one day. Which park should I see?" When they hear their two choices at Disneyland Resort, the huge majority choose Disneyland Park, because if they have to pay the same "all you can eat" price, they want the park that has more to offer. DCA suffers, when it really should be getting some of those people in to ride a few of the attractions and maybe eat something. Really, there won't be much confusion: "If you buy this passport, you will get admission to one park and use of all attractions all day. If you buy this other passport, you will get admission to both parks and limited access to the attractions. You can always get a refill if you want to ride more." >>I guess Disney can "thank" the guests by confusing them and offering them incentives to spend more money. How convenient!!!<< If someone WANTS to spend more, why should they be stopped? Likewise, is it really doing a guests a favor by charging them all the same rate even though they can't ride all of the attractions (due to downtimes, refurbishments, crowding, physical limitations, attractions being shuttered)? >>If I'm confused about things and if I believe things are more expensive through perception, I may just decide to sidestep the whole deal.<< People really won't be that confused. And if they are, good. They may hurt themselves if they enter the park and ride something. >>I would demand value.<< Is it value to pay $47 when you have some time away from the Convention Center and just want to ride your favorite ride and get a churro? >>Disney is becoming a rich man's Walmart. Imagine going into Walmart and paying $10 for a bar of soap... that's Disney's deteriorating reputation. $47 for a closed Tomorrowland.<< Which is why some people are calling for a PFP option. Why should you pay for a closed Tomorrowland. You are telling me that you don't want a PFP system, yet you aren't happy with the way things are right now. The likely other options are that you want admission price lowered (which is not going to happen - discounts are already offered if you know where to look) or you want management to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to revitalize a land, but without being able to prove to their bosses/investors that it was worth the money. That isn't going to happen either. >>The SmartCard idea will be called a scam by the customer. You can expect it.<< Just like $47 unlimited passports are called a scam by some, yet people still buy them. Ken
Originally Posted By woody >>Disney is becoming a rich man's Walmart. Imagine going into Walmart and paying $10 for a bar of soap... that's Disney's deteriorating reputation. $47 for a closed Tomorrowland.<< >Which is why some people are calling for a PFP option. Why should you pay for a closed Tomorrowland. You are telling me that you don't want a PFP system, yet you aren't happy with the way things are right now.< The fact is a PFP will restrict your options while paying more per ride. An unlimited option gives you more flexibility to go on any ride despite the fact that some rides and lands are closed. >>Just like $47 unlimited passports are called a scam by some, yet people still buy them.<< People buy them for maximum flexibility. A PFP plan gives them restrictions. And if more people pay a small amount for entrance only (which I doubt Disney will ever allow), the walkways will be even worse will tons of people wandering around, outside the queue lines, looking for entertainment... thus clogging up the public areas for higher paying customers. Will Disney earn more? No. Will the rides earn more? No.
Originally Posted By arstogas Saw this on Mouseplanet, which I rarely read anymore... nevertheless, this made me chuckle: >>>MousePlanet reader SoCalSnowWhite made an interesting discovery inside a 12-pack of Coke. Inside was a $20 off coupon towards the purchase of a new Deluxe or Premium Disneyland Resort Annual Pass. The coupon is valid through January 31, 2004. Another reader reported finding the same offer on a two-liter bottle of Coke.<<< Sounds like they're in quite a hurry to get rid of those annual passholders. Such a hurry that they're DISCOUNTING the annual passes... Anyone want to chuckle along with me?
Originally Posted By arstogas Oh, I forgot to mention... The Mickey and Friends Parking structure is just about ready to cave in, too.
Originally Posted By arstogas Whoops... just saw Darkbeer's thread on this very issue. Apologies for the redundancy...
Originally Posted By CMM1 A couple of opinions: (1) Disney has seen in the past what the lure of a great new attraction will do - all they have to do is look at the successful launchings of the Indiana Jones and Star Tours attractions to see that such new rides bring in more customers - they will see that same phenomena again when they open Tower of Terror in DCA and see the customers line up to pay full boat of $47 to ride ToT (Disney best make the most of the opportunity by making sure all of the other rides at DCA are up to speed and running so guests will feel they are getting the full day's worth - a couple of rides on ToT with an hour or two wait for each plus the other rides in DCA will make up a full day!) (2) Attendance of SoCal locals will tell the story about a park that does not keep it's rides running - lower attendance. Check and see how many locals turn out at Disneyland while two of the more famous and favorite rides for locals are down (Space Mt. and BTM). Also check and see if fewer APs are renewed based upon limited park attractions - it most likely will happen. (3) Comparison between theme park admissions and food operations is ludicrous (4) Disneyland already has the convoluted FastPass system - why add another "technical" PFP system? Heck, next thing you know they'll have to give you a 20-page "User's manual" with your ticket or provide a hotline for "Technical Support" for park guests. Just build good new rides and keep old favorites running - and the guests will come!
