Would you want Disney to open half a park?

[RickW]

After reading some of the threads here, this question struck me. I'm not 100% sure which I would choose, so I thought it might be an interesting question to ask.

Anyway, imagine the following scenario (note that this is totally made up, I have no more info in Disney's plans than you do):

Disney is building a 5th park at WDW. It will open in 4 years, and will have 6 different "lands". After 2 years, 3 of the lands will be completely finished. Would you prefer Disney to open the half park after 2 years, or would you prefer them to wait until all six lands were completed 4 years from now? Assume that admission to this half-park would cost exactly the same as the other 4. (i.e. A single day ticket would cost the same, you could hop to this park with a park hopper, etc.)

Which would you choose?

 

[All Aboard]

Hello Rick,

First, welcome to the Rumors Board.

Second, prepare yourself for a series of posts that read, "Oh, you are talking about Animal Kingdom. No, I wish they had waited to open an entire park."

But for my personal opinion. First, enchance the existing parks. Then, and only if economic conditions warrant, open a completed 5th gate.

 

[Douglas Dubh]

I agree that AK needs a few more big attractions before a new park is opened, but once that is done, I think that it makes sense to open a park smaller, rather than larger. I think your poll is slightly flawed however, in that a park could also be opened with all six lands open, but only roughly 1/2 filled (maybe 75% of entry land completed, but only 30% of the lands farthest away from the entry area.

I visited the Studios in 92, AK in 99, and DCA in 01, and found plenty to do in them for one day. And when I return to each I can look forward to new stuff. I don't think that a park should reach full build out for at least 20 years.

 

[JeffJewell]

...in that fleshing out the existing parks is a better way to grow than to open a fifth gate. Now you're going to get all cranky because I didn't answer your actual question...

To me, the key is the admission costing the same. As you describe it, I would ***** and moan about Disney trying to rip people off by offering a half park at a full price.

Now, if Disney simply spun it a different way, and offered "sneek-peek" access to the finished lands for, say, $20 bucks with your valid Hopper, then they aren't trying to pass off half a product for full price, they're trying to offer guests as much variety as possible as soon as possible, and they've basically created a little ATM for themselves. I have no problems with any of those outcomes.

If you appear to giving more to the guest for as little as possible, people will respond positively. If you appear to be giving less to the guest for the same price as always, people will respond negatively.

Jeff

 

[RickW]

I will admit that discussions of the Animal Kingdom inspired this, but I think discussing the choice you "would make" as opposed to the choice you "would have made" is a more interesting discussion.

I agree with the point about opening half-filled lands instead of half of the lands, but the reason that I went with half of the lands is that I think that situation makes is much more obvious that it is "half a park" instead of a whole park that is just not as filled as the other ones. (Although I do agree that in the real world, the half-filled lands option is much more likely.)

I think that I actually lean more toward the "open half the park" since when I go to WDW, I buy "days" instead of "parks." If WDW decided to spend $1 Billion on new development in the parks over the next 3 years, it really wouldn't matter to me if they spread it among the 4 current parks or opened a 5th park, as long as the theming made sense.

 

[Sarangel]

There's a sense out here in CA that Disney has already opened half a park (and that some of the lands aren't all that complete), they call it DCA. I think I'm in the open it if it makes sense & then let me see the new stuff as it unrolls.

Of course, I, like RickW, think in terms of 'Days' and not single admissions (and in the case of DCA, I thought it was worth paying the extra $100 on my annual pass for 10 months of admissions).

Sarangel

 

[hopemax]

I actually don't mind the opening of half a park if there is evidence that quality expansion in a timely manner is also occuring. I don't even mind paying full-price for half a park if quality expansion is occuring in a timely manner. It's the "good faith" compromise I'm willing to make. I'll pay more than it's worth at the onset because I have faith that in the future I am going to be getting a bargin considering the price. Venture capital in a way, but the investor's got to see some potential for return of the investment.

The problem is that I don't feel like Disney is holding up their end of the deal anymore.

First 5 years of the US theme parks:

DL: Astrojets, Storybookland, Tom Sawyer Island, Skyway, Pack Mules, Stage Coaches, Rainbow Caverns Mine Train, Midget Autopia, Castle Walk-thru, House of the Future, Viewliner, Motor Boat Cruise, Alice in Wonderland, Columbia, Fantasyland Autopia, Submarine Voyage, Monorail, Matterhorn.

Magic Kingdom: Walt Disney Story, Swan Boats, If You Had Wings, Carousel of Progress, Star Jets, WEDway Peoplemover, Space Mountain, Pirates of the Caribbean, Tom Sawyer Island, Richard Irvine Steamboat.

Epcot: Horizons, Living Seas, Imagination, Morocco (and Epcot was mostly complete to begin with)

MGM: HISTA movie set, Star Tours, Muppet Vision, Voyage of the Little Mermaid, Beauty & the Beast Stage Show, Tower of Terror.

hen we get to Animal Kingdom...

Animal Kingdom will have it's 5th anniversary April 2003 and the additions we know about are: Maharajah Jungle Trek, Kali River Rapids, Primeval Whirl, Triceratops Spin. And if construction started today I don't know what of substance can be added before the 5 year clock hits zero.

It's not opening half a park that's the problem, it's what comes next (or rather what doesn't appear to be coming next) that's the problem.

IMO anyway.

 

[YoHo]

Hopemax hints at something, but I'd rather go in a different Direction.
I chose full park. Really, I wouldn't mind an incomplete park. You just have to set your definitions right.

you see, to me, a park is complete when the whole thing blends together when you can walk in and whether there are 10 attractions or 100, feel the completeness of it.

To me, what Animal Kingdom needed was Beastly kingdom and it would have had everything. Ride counts don't matter here.

When you think about it, a lot of the plussing at Disneyland in the first 5 years was relativly minor stuff. I mean they didn't add an E-ticket every year.
The fact is that the park presented itself a fully formed. Animal Kingdom feels somewhat embriotic. DCA is a zygot (I can thinKof something more descriptive, but this is the rumours board, not the debate board. )

I want that newborn. You know, everythings there, it just needs to grow and mature and become and Adult as it were.

 

[Douglas Dubh]

"you see, to me, a park is complete when the whole thing blends together when you can walk in and whether there are 10 attractions or 100, feel the completeness of it.

To me, what Animal Kingdom needed was Beastly kingdom and it would have had everything."

It may be that AK feels incomplete with BK only because we were led to expect BK. I think that if AK had opened with a few more attractions, and there was no expectation of BK, it might have felt complete. Certainly Disneyland didn't need Critter Country, Toontown, and New Orleans Square to "feel" complete. It probably could have opened without Adventureland as well, as long as the other lands were beefed up accordingly.

A park has to have enough attractions to keep the average visitor busy for 6 to 8 hours in lightly crowded conditions. I think all the Disney parks built so far have met this threshold. The Paris Studio might be the first to fail it.

 

[HBK]

I voted for open the park and continue to build around it.

Let's assume the fifth park has been greenlighted....ignoring the other problems the other parks face, since that's the gist I got from the lead post.

I say open the park with 3 out of six lands. Just make the lands be complete. I think Animal relys on shows too much in place of ride based attractions. I feel the shows should be sprinkled in with a good mix of ride based attractions (not nessesarily thrill rides). If you have three lands which offer a good mix of rides and shows, then I don't think you'll have the problems DAK has today. It's kind of depressing to think that when the park opens, it'll stay that way forever since it's complete. I like change as much as the next guy.

But the key to my vote is the money for the other six lands is put into an escrow. No re-distribution to the other parks if cannibalism occurs. This money is for the new park. Period. No delays of construction, no last minute on the cheap additions. Build the final three lands just as you did the first three.

If that were to happen, I'd have no problem with the park opening with three lands. As long as there was enough to keep me interested and looking for more of the same I'd be fine. And from the company's perspective, it allows them to start getting some return on the investment.

 

[Another Voice]

How many people pay full price for a salad bar that only offers lettuce and thousand island dressing – with the promise that if enough people show up they might add baby carrots?

How many people would pay to see a romance movie with just the male lead – on the promise that if the box office is strong enough they can hire Meg Ryan and then they’ll film all of her scenes?

Or how about staying in a hotel room with three walls – hey the rooms are nice and besides, if we had to pay for that fourth wall, there wouldn’t be any towels. And isn’t the extra breeze magical?

The whole concept that people will enjoy a place with the potential for growth, and therefore will willingly accept less up front, just doesn't work in the real world.

“Potential” is a term that a grade school teacher uses when she’s talking to the parent of the really slow kid. “Potential” is for Aunt Emma’s sudden interest in oil painting right after retiring. “Potential” is the proper response when your boss presents a really asinine idea in a meeting.

No one pays for “potential”. People pay for what they get. To think otherwise is foolish for the fans, and dangerous for The Company. In the eyes of a customer, something is either worth the money or it’s not. It’s really very simple – and if looking at the attendance levels at the various Disney parks is any indication, the general public seems to answering this poll rather decisively.

Besides, if “potential” were the scale to judge a theme park by – give me back Disneyland’s parking lot. That chunk of asphalt had a thousand times more potential for development than California Adventure ever will.

 

[Eeyore2U]

I wouldn't buy a car with three tires!!

Finish it!!! There will be less complaining in the long run by the customers.

 

[Douglas Dubh]

"How many people pay full price for a salad bar that only offers lettuce and thousand island dressing – with the promise that if enough people show up they might add baby carrots?"

Bad analogy. If you want to compare a salad bar to the typical Disney park at opening, you'd have to say it has about 15 items to chose from, with the promise of adding 15 more over time.

"How many people would pay to see a romance movie with just the male lead – on the promise that if the box office is strong enough they can hire Meg Ryan and then they’ll film all of her scenes?"

Also a false analogy. A better one would be who would buy a movie with enhanced special effects and additional scenes when they've already seen the original? When we go to the movies, the admission for a shorter or less costly to produce movie does not cost less than one that costs more or is longer.

Admission to a park buys you a day's worth of fun. As long as that threshold is met, then the park is substantially complete. Of course, a park that fails to add more stuff can initially meet the requirement and later fail it.

 

[Douglas Dubh]

"I wouldn't buy a car with three tires!!"

No, but you might buy one without a cd player, figuring you can add one later. How many people would buy a house with an unfinished basement, knowing they could finish it later?

 

[larworth]

It just makes sense in the case of WDW to open the park early. Why have those assets sit there for two more years without starting to get any type of return on them. It makes something new available, more frequently, for repeat visitors. Most importantly, it reduces risk. By getting actual guest reaction about likes and dislikes, you can enhance the evolution of the park and improve the final product. The concept has merit, the problem seems to be in the execution.

I think so much of any reaction is based on expectations. Sell the park for what it is. I think overselling ends up costing you in the longrun. Be more obvious that you are thinking about the guest. I never got the sense that Disney recognized the AK was not complete, and that people do suffer some inconvenience being forced to hop. Almost like let's not do anything to acknowledge these warts and maybe they won't notice. Same at DCA.

I don't think you have to operate the new park as a loss-leader to make it work, but it seems they need better balance between shorterm results and longterm customer goodwill. Some things seem so obvious, like a single day admission reflective of the relative entertainment value. Real perks to park hoppers to reward them, instead of business motivated ones (restaurant discount late in the day when most are gone). The best bus transportation anywhere on property. Pro-active day planning tips on how best to fit the park into your stay. Etc. I have been surprised the Disney has not managed these things better.

 

[raidermatt]

It just makes sense in the case of WDW to open the park early. Why have those assets sit there for two more years without starting to get any type of return on them. It makes something new available, more frequently, for repeat visitors. Most importantly, it reduces risk. By getting actual guest reaction about likes and dislikes, you can enhance the evolution of the park and improve the final product. The concept has merit, the problem seems to be in the execution.

I agree 100%. Its a way of taking some risks, without having to risk so much that the project will never get approved. Realistically, I don't see much of a chance that the "opening before complete" strategy will ever change when it comes to areas like WDW and DLResort that already have established, successful parks. It just solid business sense.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Admission to a park buys you a day's worth of fun. As long as that threshold is met, then the park is substantially complete.

BINGO!!! You are right!!

And that's just the problem. I realize it's subjective. And you may personally think that AK is "a day's worth of fun". But many of us don't!! And more than that, it seems the general population, by both attendance and survey agree that it is NOT "a day's worth of fun". So for me at least, AV's analogies are not only appropriate, they are perfect!!!

I will, however, use your take on things the next time someone says that in 1972 the MK was hardly built out as we see it today! Or when they say that EPCOT opened with only nine countries and only 6 Pavilions!! And then they have the audacity to draw that comparison to AK or DCA!!! How ludicrous!! How silly!!

By your standards both MK and EPCOT (on opening day) were both "TWO day's worth of fun" each!! Indeed your analogy of "it has about 15 items to chose from, with the promise of adding 15 more over time" would be completely appropriate. AK, sadly, doesn't even come close to that mark. It IS like a head of lettuce and thousand island dressing. OK, maybe that's a little harsh. There are some stale croutons in a bowl at the edge of the counter!!

And don't ya just love this guy!! WOW, can he turn a phrase or what??

Besides, if "potential" were the scale to judge a theme park by - give me back Disneyland's parking lot. That chunk of asphalt had a thousand times more potential for development than California Adventure ever will.

Thanks AV!!!!

 

[mikek]

AV-

I think there's a HUGE difference between the left coast and the right coast here. You folks like salad alot more.

joke aside...

In CA- it seems they are trying to sell 2 different park admissions (well i guess you'd say maybe they realized the flaw here with the news about AP's?). In florida, i'd be SHOCKED if more than low single digit % actually buy individual park tickets. Most everyone buys some kind of ticket that allows you to hop from park to park. So its almost like the parks are more lands in the whole resort. You've paid for the DAY not the park. AK as a prime example, most people finish up in by mid afternoon, heck it closes at 5 for most of the year. I think the vast majority go to another park with that same days admission.

Looking at it that way- I vote add another half whenever you can and i'll pack up at 3pm and go someplace else. (one park at a time though- i dont need 10 half parks to be schleping all the time between)

Now in CA- if they tried that and wanted me to pay to walk across the bricks and get into DL, I'd be pretty mad at the lack of cucumbers at the salad bar.

 

[cmatt]

I agree with the half baked cake, post! would you eat a baked cake, I dont think so, maybe just the frosting,, cmatt

 

[Another Voice]

Let’s just cut to the hear to the heart of the matter.

Disney’s problem is not that they are opening small parks – it’s that they won’t admit it.

No one complains that Blizzard Beach or Pleasure Island aren’t “full day” experiences because they’re not marketed or priced like that. But Animal Kingdom and California Adventure (especially DCA) where sold as full-blown, Disney-quality, spend your day and your money parks. They’re not – and the public knows it.

No one wants to pay for stuff they won’t get (especially if they’ve been promised they will). Most people are not willing to sacrifice their hard-earned vacation dollars in the hopes that they might be funding something that may be built at some point in the future . My family’s enjoyment is my immediate concern, I really don’t give a damn about Disney’s capital funding needs.

The solution is rather clear – either build “full-sized” parks that meet people’s expectations, or price what you build to meet people’s standard of value. The problem with reliance on a brand image is that you occasionally have to live up to it. It can be a messy expensive business, but the downside of not meeting your customer’s expectations is even worse.