Would you want Disney to open half a park?

[All Aboard]

So its almost like the parks are more lands in the whole resort. You've paid for the DAY not the park.

I've (woefully unsuccesfully) tried to make this argument in the past. Still, (as evidenced by the thread on single day ticket prices going up) there are folks here that believe AK was presented as a $50 a day park. I'd love to have access on hard data showing the percentage of ticket buys that are single day. I propose that it was presented as an incentive to buy a 5 day instead of a 4 day hopper with the idea that the after-5 pm hours would be spent elsewhere.

Given the notion of "additional lands in the whole resort" I have been more complimentary of AK than not. True, we spend the least amount of time there v. the other parks. But, there are several offerings that make it worth the trip over there. Our enjoyment of AK will grow as it does.

While single day tickets are one extreme, we are the other. Annual passholders that will hop to a park just to see a particular show, parade or attraction then hop onto something else.

More and more, you have WDW travellers engineering their vacations that way. "We'll hit AK in the morning, hop over to Epcot and finish at the Studios for Fantasmic." I know of at least one person on this board that really doesn't like that concept. In fact, he doesn't like the fact that Fantasmic draws guests to the park for it only. I won't name names, though.

 

[hopemax]

Scoop, I left out Tarzan Rocks because it was a replacement for "Journey into Jungle Book" it was not an expansion project. The addition of Tarzan Rocks did nothing to increase the attraction count in the park, which is what one would expect a growing newbie park would do.

Also, to clarify "potential." I'm talking about the potential that involves walled off sections where you can peak and see the earthmovers, and walls being erected and progress that can be seen on a daily basis. Not the "potential" of, "see that empty land we have big plans for it." I'm willing to pay more upfront. if I can see the construction happening. Something physical. Something occuring on a timeline, that the layman can appreciate instead of locked up in a company meeting room.

Now AV compares things to salad bars, and no I don't think that's the proper analogy. The house one works better for me. Lots of people buy houses that have land where they can add a extra bedroom later on.

And part of me thinks if I'm not willing to bet a little on potential (note, I said a little and back to earthmovers and visible unfinished buildings), how can I expect the company to bet a little on potential and build the next cutting edge attraction? If I'm only willing to pay for what I will get now, I can't expect the Company to spend the money on something that isn't a darn good guarantee will be profitable...like $3 billion full blown parks

 

[JeffJewell]

I propose that it was presented as an incentive to buy a 5 day instead of a 4 day hopper with the idea that the after-5 pm hours would be spent elsewhere.

...you are correct about this.

The problem is that opening AK did not result in that happening. By and large, people are fitting AK into their existing vacation rather than adding a day.

Just because some of us can spend "one whole day" in AK does not mean that people, in general, are adding "one whole day" to their resort stays; in particular, to their Disney resort stays.

That's the aspect of the term "full day park" that's of some real value: whether or not you're sleeping with Mickey an extra night. Disney felt AK and DCA would be "full" enough to get the extra night for all the hotel rooms they were building; it was a big part of the business model.

In the sense of the term that was most important to Disney's pocketbook, they have created two demonstrably less than "full day" parks, recently.

Jeff

 

[HBK]

I propose that it was presented as an incentive to buy a 5 day instead of a 4 day hopper with the idea that the after-5 pm hours would be spent elsewhere.

Sorry Greg....not quite. The company eliminated the three day park hopper and replaced it with a 4 day as the minimum purchasable ticket. That is what fuels my fire. If I could purchase a three day park hopper plus, which would basically allow me to avoid purchasing a day AK I would have no problem buying into the "day not the park" concept. But you can't. And thus I can't buy into your concept that AK is not bundled into your admission costs.

 

[airlarry!]

I'll 'volunteer' to tame this 'Tiger.' (waves a small purple & gold Geaux sign).

I voted full park. Someone said that it does not matter what the attraction counts are, it should be instead a look at the amount of time a guest would spend in the park. If it is a half-day, then charge what Blizzard Beach charges. If it is full-day, call it a Gate (notice we don't call PI or BB or TL 'gates').

I agree with this. But, I think to finish the argument, you must step away from the monorail and look at this from the eyes of Jean Deaux, average tourist. Let's say that M. Deaux, fresh off the Tigers win in Atlanta, decides to skip the Sugar Bowl and head to the Citrus for a week at WDW. Does he and his family take a whole day when they visit the parks?

Yes, I am one of those people that *can* spend a whole day at AK. I like the park. But, every person who does not spend an hour each day reading the DIS b-board (i.e. the normal tourist) tells me that they only spent a half-day at AK and then hit some other gate or area. For the average Jeaux, there just isn't enough at AK to cover a whole day. I was at MGM right after opening. We loved the place, but there just wasn't enough to cover a whole day. It was easily a finished-by-2-or-3 o'clock park.

I get the sense that DCA, Paris Studios, and HK DL are the same. The disneyphile can, and will, spend a whole day looking for hidden mickeys, examining the architecture, riding the best attractions two or three times, admiring the queues, etc etc, but the rest of the crowd won't. They will head to the majors, try half the minors, eat once, get a snack, grab a little shopping, and then let their complaining feet walk them back to the monorail station.

Attendance, as AV already stated, is the proof in the pudding. While AK and DCA have declining or dwindling attendance (can you even imagine a Disney park with attendance less than 5000 almost every day? It exists!), Tokyo Disney Seas is jammed pack--whenever Tokyo DisneyLand is the #1 park in the world in attendance already!

Oh, I hear someone getting ready to type that they were at MGM right after opening and it was so popular, blah blah blah, that they had to double the size, blah blah, of the parking lot blah blah blah. Well, I was there too, and had family working there--one of them at MGM in fact (or maybe it was one of their friends)--and the reason they had to double the parking lot was because expectations were so low, and the premise of internal transporation was so high, that they intentionally made a small parking lot (perhaps to save funds). But when the lot filled up each day at 10:00 am, Burbank decided to expand.

That was the downfall I believe of the present admin. After MK and EPCOT opened as full-day parks, they made a bushel full of money with a half-day park. Somewhere in the heart of a President and CEO, a very un-Walt-like business plan was hatched.....

 

[Bob O]

I dont think a park should be opened till its a complete park, like IOA or TDS.
I would agree with alot of the points made by AnotherVoice And DVC LANDBARON in their posts.
Animal Kingdom isnt a whole park and when we have been their (3times) we did everything and our favorites more than once in 4-5 hours, granted we went in a slower time of the year.The same thing when MGM opened, the park wasnt complete but was finished incomplete purposelly so as to be done before Universal Studios. Disney trying to make more money by supplying the vistor with a incomplete product, and its done intentionally.
Some points made by other posters- Douglas Dubh- Why should we go to a park for 20yrs and give up hard earned money till the park is finally complete. Or will we get a rebate for the times we went in those 20yrs??
Hopemax going to a park isnt a investment of money, my investing my money in disney stock is. Im not giving them my money for a product that may not be completed for 20yrs, im giving them my money for the product i get right now, not later. What bargain do you get because when the park is finally done the admission will be higher and you will get no credit for attending a inferior/unfininshed park in past yrs.
If your not going to finish the park properly at time of grand opening then they shouldnt undertake the building of it in the first place till they are ready to devote the proper amount of money to finsinh it. That was apparently done at TDS from what ive read but not in the US parks since epcot. Disney is happy to put out a unfinished product in the US because they believe we will settle for it. Hopefully with the debacle of DCA they will have learned.

 

[Another Voice]

There’s an interesting tangent to the “open while you build it” scheme that the Studios is facing right now (and the Animal Kingdom will soon).

Say you follow the Studio model, open the place “early” and take a decade to fill-it out. The problem is that the end of the ten years, all of those original attractions are old, worn and in need of replacement. After all that time and money spent on the place, you’re still left with just half a park.

Look at the Studios. It’s got ‘Tower’ and ‘Rock’ – but it’s opening day attractions like ‘Great Movie Ride’ and ‘Indiana Jones’ are begging for replacement and its premier attraction, the tram tour, has been disassembled and also needs to be rethought. ‘Muppets’ hasn’t aged well and several theaters built for the original shows either sit empty (‘SuperStar Television’) or deserted (‘Sound Show’, ‘Sounds Dangerous’). And the only thought people give to ‘Star Tours’ is to whine about the ‘Episode I’ version that will never show up.

Isn’t the Studio still just a “half-day” park in terms of stuff you WANT to go on?

 

[Captain Crook]

Isn't the Studios still just a "half day Park" in terms of stuff you WANT to go on?

Oh Mr. Voice, you're no different than that scoundrel the Pirate when it comes to stirring the proverbial pot just to see whats cooking.

 

[JeffH]

If they waited to open a park until it was 'done', then the money lost in an early opening would have to come out of something. So the vote should also consider the fact that you'd have to give up that money towards other expansion throughout the parks. And the joy that we have gotten from AK since it opened is immeasurable.

Epcot was a 1 day park when it opened featuring only about 16 attractions, which if you arrived early you could get through in 1 day and no night show at first. Now if you took the time to explore the World Showcase, then you could not 'experience' everything...but then if you took the time to explore AK, you could spend a whole day there, abit short as it is. AK does definitely need BK though to at least complete the parks concept.
MGM has become a wonderful park adding just the things we like most at WDW, live shows. A glorious 1 day park.

 

[JeffJewell]

"Isn’t the Studio still just a “half-day” park in terms of stuff you WANT to go on?" No.

...don't worry my friend, I'm sure it won't be too long before they'll add a spinner-land to MGM to bring it up to code!

Ho! Ho! Ho!

Jeff

PS: Sorry for the early Christmas reference, but my sister's a doctor and happens to be on call for the real thing; so my family held our Christmas festivities today. Because this was the gang who agreed to forego presents and instead gave ourselves our recent Disney trip, we sat around all day looking at pictures and watching MVMCP videos. And eating. There was a lot of eating, I recall...

 

[hopemax]

Say you follow the Studio model, open the place “early” and take a decade to fill-it out. The problem is that the end of the ten years, all of those original attractions are old, worn and in need of replacement. After all that time and money spent on the place, you’re still left with just half a park.

But this problem doesn't really go away if a full park is built. At the end of the 10 years instead of having half an attraction roster that needs updating, *most* of the park needs updating, which IMHO is what happened at Epcot. WoM, Horizons, Imagination, the Land all tired out about the same time, with the Living Seas & WS movies not far behind. And I'm not sure even a better management team could have kept the park fresh short of taking 5 attractions down at the same time, which isn't a good option either.