Is Disney at fault for disappointment?

[JimmyV]

An attraction called Energy shouldn't be best known as a place to nap.

It teaches us how to conserve energy! I have to admit to doing my share of conservation on that ride. Until I get an elbow to the ribs by my wife for snoring.

 

[mickeyluv'r]

But doesn't that boost your energy level?

Yes, but the World of Energy is pretty exciting, especially right now. The cost of wind and solar are approaching the cost of the fossil fuels.

The international summit coming to Paris in December is likely to be a real game changer in terms of thinking about energy and climate. Large corporations know there is simply too much money on the table. Those who innovate will continue to be relevant.

I do sometimes wonder if maybe the stagnation of Epcot is metaphorically connected to our nation as a whole.

 

[MrInfinity]

Interesting turn. I've been to AK in the company of a child under 3-ish. (I'm saying -ish because WDW goes by height, not age) Though a child under 3 can look at a great many things in AK, there's really only two RIDES they can do: the safari and Dino-Dumbo.

If you really think the number of rides is the most important thing, then tell me why the Animal Kingdom, and it's 2 kid-rides, draws 10-million guests, but Six Flags and most other theme parks average around 2-3 million guests, with perhaps 10 or 15 kid-rides. It's not about the quantity of rides that drives people to Disney. People have closer parks, that will cost far less, be easier to get to, etc, yet people are still going to the place with 2 rides 5-to-1 over other parks with more rides. People would simply rather pay 5x as much to have ONE ride on a Frozen ride and a chance to be in Disney World than 10 other rides closer to home.

 

[dlavender]

If you really think the number of rides is the most important thing, then tell me why the Animal Kingdom, and it's 2 kid-rides, draws 10-million guests, but Six Flags and most other theme parks average around 2-3 million guests, with perhaps 10 or 15 kid-rides. It's not about the quantity of rides that drives people to Disney. People have closer parks, that will cost far less, be easier to get to, etc, yet people are still going to the place with 2 rides 5-to-1 over other parks with more rides. People would simply rather pay 5x as much to have ONE ride on a Frozen ride and a chance to be in Disney World than 10 other rides closer to home.

I've wondered, how many people would the AK and HS attract as a stand alone, meaning, people who travel to WDW and do not do MK, and visit AK and HS as the central part of the visit? I would assume that there is a large percentage of AK and HS visitors who are visiting as an add on, not as the central focus of the trip....just a thought. They are using the lowered cost of adding additional days to do it. If there were no lowered cost incentive, not sure there would still be 10 mil visitors...

 

[Jennytoon]

I've wondered, how many people would the AK and HS attract as a stand alone, meaning, people who travel to WDW and do not do MK, and visit AK and HS as the central part of the visit? I would assume that there is a large percentage of AK and HS visitors who are visiting as an add on, not as the central focus of the trip....just a thought. They are using the lowered cost of adding additional days to do it. If there were no lowered cost incentive, not sure there would still be 10 mil visitors...

I can only answer for myself -- AK, yes, HS, no.

HS is our least favorite park. But MK is next ahead of it (blasphemy, I know). Epcot and AK are where we spend the bulk of our time.

And just to throw that out there, this has been consistently true for the last six years, since my children were 1.5, 4.5, and 7. So I see all the posts about how Epcot may not be that interesting for those with small children, and the posts in this thread about the lack of rides for young children impacting the AK experience for families with younger kids -- but from a personal perspective, I don't get them.

 

[dlavender]

I can only answer for myself -- AK, yes, HS, no.

HS is our least favorite park. But MK is next ahead of it (blasphemy, I know). Epcot and AK are where we spend the bulk of our time.

And just to throw that out there, this has been consistently true for the last six years, since my children were 1.5, 4.5, and 7. So I see all the posts about how Epcot may not be that interesting for those with small children, and the posts in this thread about the lack of rides for young children impacting the AK experience for families with younger kids -- but from a personal perspective, I don't get them.

Thanks for your viewpoint.

It might be my "MK is the best park ever" colored glasses that gives me my viewpoint...as I have the exact opposite view. I would never use a full day's ticket for EPCOT, HS, or AK. Only if I had park hoppers so that I could get my MK fix each day....

 

[Hudson Hornet]

I think you should always do research for a big trip. If you don't, then it is your fault, not WDW's. However, I think Disney's website leaves something to be desired. I think they should explain the importance of prebooking FPs and making ADRs, because Disney used to be all about making people have a magical experience. That includes the planning portion IMHO.

 

[JimmyV]

then tell me why the Animal Kingdom, and it's 2 kid-rides, draws 10-million guests

Because it is part of Walt Disney World. If AK were a standalone park built in, say, Tampa, it would attract fewer visitors than Busch Gardens. If DHS were a standalone park built in, say, Orlando, it would draw fewer guests than Universal Studios. By being part of the Disney Borg, it gets a built-in audience. For the same reason that 'Ohana sells out every night. Not because it is great (or even good), but because of where it is and what it is a part of. Put 'Ohana in San Francisco and it would close in six months. Don't let AK's or DHS's attendance stand as a proxy for their relative worth.

 

[Hudson Hornet]

Because it is part of Walt Disney World. If AK were a standalone park built in, say, Tampa, it would attract fewer visitors than Busch Gardens. If DHS were a standalone park built in, say, Orlando, it would draw fewer guests than Universal Studios. By being part of the Disney Borg, it gets a built-in audience. For the same reason that 'Ohana sells out every night. Not because it is great (or even good), but because of where it is and what it is a part of. Put 'Ohana in San Francisco and it would close in six months. Don't let AK's or DHS's attendance stand as a proxy for their relative worth.

I don't know if you are giving AK a fair shake. It has some really great attractions: Everest, Dinosaur, Lion King, and Nemo. Some really great eats: Tusker and Flaming Tree. And the zoo part is really nice: I'll include the Safari here as well. I think it would do great as a stand alone, but I do concede that it does better because of the location and the Disney theming.

 

[Hudson Hornet]

Thanks for your viewpoint.

It might be my "MK is the best park ever" colored glasses that gives me my viewpoint...as I have the exact opposite view. I would never use a full day's ticket for EPCOT, HS, or AK. Only if I had park hoppers so that I could get my MK fix each day....

I routinely go to AK and EPCOT for full days and sometimes find myself going for multiple days. DHS is never more than a half day for me. That may very well change once Star Wars land is built.

 

[JimmyV]

I don't know if you are giving AK a fair shake. It has some really great attractions: Everest, Dinosaur, Lion King, and Nemo. Some really great eats: Tusker and Flaming Tree. And the zoo part is really nice: I'll include the Safari here as well. I think it would do great as a stand alone, but I do concede that it does better because of the location and the Disney theming.

Perhaps my wording suggested that I was under-playing AK. What I was trying to say is...Busch Gardens is simply a better all-around park. That doesn't mean that AK stinks. Just that BG is better. So if one wants to predict what the standalone attendance at AK would be if it were severed from WDW, I think one can look to BG as a starting point, and then perhaps subtract a certain percentage. What isn't asked or answered about this is whether the standalone AK would have the Disney name attached to it. If so, that is good for something and might cause AK to surpass BG. But if the Disney name were absent, there is no way that AK would outdraw BG.

 

[lugnut33]

Glad to see so many people in this thread who went to MK had perfect success on their first shot. Amazing, you are all smarter than me. Heck, I'm still learning the ins and outs on every vacation I take there.

 

[Hudson Hornet]

Perhaps my wording suggested that I was under-playing AK. What I was trying to say is...Busch Gardens is simply a better all-around park. That doesn't mean that AK stinks. Just that BG is better. So if one wants to predict what the standalone attendance at AK would be if it were severed from WDW, I think one can look to BG as a starting point, and then perhaps subtract a certain percentage. What isn't asked or answered about this is whether the standalone AK would have the Disney name attached to it. If so, that is good for something and might cause AK to surpass BG. But if the Disney name were absent, there is no way that AK would outdraw BG.

I totally agree. I mistook your post. I am not at all under The delusion that any of the parks outside of MK would do as well if they were severed from Disney. I think they all have something great to offer, but they wouldn't have the draw that Disney has.

 

[MrInfinity]

Perhaps my wording suggested that I was under-playing AK. What I was trying to say is...Busch Gardens is simply a better all-around park. That doesn't mean that AK stinks. Just that BG is better. So if one wants to predict what the standalone attendance at AK would be if it were severed from WDW, I think one can look to BG as a starting point, and then perhaps subtract a certain percentage. What isn't asked or answered about this is whether the standalone AK would have the Disney name attached to it. If so, that is good for something and might cause AK to surpass BG. But if the Disney name were absent, there is no way that AK would outdraw BG.

So would you say the quantity of rides are secondary, and it is the vacation experience that is driving people to these parks? So much so, that even a better park with better rides in the same region will only draw 1/5th as many guests as the least popular Disney park because the vacation experience matters so much more than the number of rides?

 

[3DisneyFanz]

I think the better question is nor would they do okay away from Disney but would anyone pay $95 if they weren't on Disney property.

 

[JimmyV]

So would you say the quantity of rides are secondary, and it is the vacation experience that is driving people to these parks?

I don't think I can answer this because I don't know what "vacation experience" is or means. Seems rather ethereal. People go to AK because there are 4 gates and 7 days in a week and they want to try everything. If Disney were to ever open 8 gates and people had only 7 days in which to vacation, one park would become the least favored park and would see a total attendance number far below the others. But as long as there are fewer gates than there are days in the week, people will go to all of the parks, with some parks being more popular than others. If quality of rides were the most important factor, BG would have way more visitors than AK. It kicks AK's butt in terms of ride quality.

 

[MrInfinity]

I don't think I can answer this because I don't know what "vacation experience" is or means. Seems rather ethereal. People go to AK because there are 4 gates and 7 days in a week and they want to try everything. If Disney were to ever open 8 gates and people had only 7 days in which to vacation, one park would become the least favored park and would see a total attendance number far below the others. But as long as there are fewer gates than there are days in the week, people will go to all of the parks, with some parks being more popular than others. If quality of rides were the most important factor, BG would have way more visitors than AK. It kicks AK's butt in terms of ride quality.

So what you're saying is 5x as many people are going to the Animal Kingdom than go to Bush Gardens, just sort of to check it out... even tho BG has better rides and is a better park? You'd think once they check it out, they wouldn't keep going back if the park next door is that much better.

 

[JimmyV]

So what you're saying is 5x as many people are going to the Animal Kingdom than go to Bush Gardens, just sort of to check it out... even tho BG has better rides and is a better park?

Egggg-zactly!!

You'd think once they check it out, they wouldn't keep going back if the park next door is that much better.

But BG isn't "right next door". There is no "Magical Express" bus that will bring the captive audience to the Tampa area. I have never gone to BG on a "Disney Trip" (at least, not that I can recall), but I have gone to BG every time that I vacationed in the Tampa/St. Pete/Sarasota area. You just have to open your mind to believe that someone can actually do something better than Disney. BG really is better than AK. I'm not kidding. (Though I do really miss Rhino Rally. That was the best ride that they had.)

 

[3DisneyFanz]

So what you're saying is 5x as many people are going to the Animal Kingdom than go to Bush Gardens, just sort of to check it out... even tho BG has better rides and is a better park? You'd think once they check it out, they wouldn't keep going back if the park next door is that much better.

It's the bubble. People accept less because it's in the "World". I'm not sure anything other than MK would truly stand on its own and draw any more than a local park.

 

[Planogirl]

It's the bubble. People accept less because it's in the "World". I'm not sure anything other than MK would truly stand on its own and draw any more than a local park.

ITA. I like Animal Kingdom but I don't know that I would pay so much for it if it was alone. The other two not-MK parks wouldn't get a nickel from me right now if they were stand-alone.