EE Yeti

[joonyer]

But BrerGnat, if you hadn't gone to AK, wouldn't you have gone to another park, and ended up spending money there as well? It all goes into the same pot. EE may increase attendance at AK, but it's more difficult to assess how much revenue it produces. Attendance and Revenue are two different things at WDW, due to the multiple parks and the way multi-day and hopper passes are sold.

[JPL]

1. Not if less people are going to the park and spending money

2. Not if they are spending millions to fix the attraction...

So Those people will spend their money at another Park or DTD. As for spending Millions to fix the attractions that is likely going to happen at some point but while the ride is closed for refurb they are not spending the money to run the attraction so in essence they are cutting dailly operating expenses. When they need to cut spending the first thing they do is cut attraction hours or park hours so this is actually proof this works. As i stated abve the people with tickets will still spend their money elsewhere.

[grwoolf]

interesting thread.

First, let me say that I think EE is much more impressive with a working Yeti and it was the highlight of the ride for me back when it was working. Seeing something so big move that fast is probably the most impressive single feature I've seen at any attraction at WDW. I don't see how anyone could miss it or not tell the difference in A vs B like some have posted. But that's my opinion. It's also my opinion that EE is still a great ride in B mode and a huge draw for the park (just look at the lines).

I take a lot of interest to Disney's business model as it relates to their attractions and ride elements. Sometimes I find myself looking at an element of an attraction and think "wow, how much $ did they spend on a single detail, and did it really make sense from a cost/benefit standpoint?" Many of the details at WDW simply cannot justify their individual costs. However, I think the sum of all those expensive details is what ultimately makes Disney great and successful in business.

It does bother me when I see key ride elements down for exteneded periods of time and I think it is a terrible waste of the investments Disney makes in their original ride designs. I saw the hopping rabbit on Splash Mtn working for the first time in 5 years on our last trip (and the cones on test track). These kind of things bother me a lot becuase I can't believe they would be that hard to keep running. The current Yeti problem is another animal so to speak if the rumors are true about the nature of the problems. Beyond the cost of repair issue (not to be ignored), there is the trade off between upsetting people if the ride is down for extended repair vs. the disappointment of the stationary Yeti (many people don't even know he could move). If I were running the Zoo, I think I'd need to keep the ride running until it was time for it's first significant rehab and address the Yeti issue at that time. Unfortunately, I have a feeling he will be down for a long time (if not forever).

[JPL]

I saw the hopping rabbit on Splash Mtn working for the first time in 5 years on our last trip

Tony Baxter refers to that as the Million Dollar Rabbit

These kind of things bother me a lot becuase I can't believe they would be that hard to keep running.

Maintenance sadly is the first cutback they make to pad the bottom line. This causes lots of friction between Imagineering and operations.

[lockedoutlogic]

Hey guess what? You know WHY I went to AK on my trip? TO RIDE EXPEDITION EVEREST. That's IT. Period. I got extremely ill on my first full day of vacation, and ended up spending 2 days in my hotel room. My sister and friend went to AK one day without me. They also went ONLY to ride Everest. While there, they also spent money on food at Flame Tree BBQ (not on the DDP). And, my friend found a monkey toy that she wanted to buy for her friend's son for his 1st birthday.

When I was feeling better, I wanted to go to AK, but the ONLY reason I felt compelled to go there was to ride Expedition Everest. If that ride had not been there, or had been down, I would have COMPLETELY skipped AK, even though we had park hoppers. I simply didn't have enough time to allocate to AK, given that I had "wasted" 2 days of my vacation being sick. However, while in AK to ride Everest, since we got "front of the line magical moment passes", and in effect, skippped the 90 min wait, we also rode one other ride, which we weren't planning for at all. We ALSO again ate at Flame Tree BBQ and my friend purchased that monkey toy. SO, we spent some $$$ on food/merchandise at AK that we otherwise wouldn't have had Expedition Everest not been there or been closed for repair.

Take that for what it's worth. I am a seasoned WDW visitor, and as far as AK is concerned, it's not a "must do" on my repeat visits, EXCEPT to ride E:E. When I go with my kids for the first time, of course we will go there so the KIDS can experience all the stuff for the first time (as I would do for any "first time visitor"). However, the bottom line is, for repeat visitors, that park is stale, unless you get a HUGE thrill out of (maybe) seeing some animals and want to see more of the same in regards to live stage shows (personally, I'm of the feeling that if you've seen them once, that's enough).

ok...that's a neat little story


BUT GUESS WHAT?!

it doesn't say anything about pattern....

[lockedoutlogic]

I would disagree about rides increasing attendance only slightly. Maybe that's true at other parks, but because Disney is known for building fabulously themed attractions, the attendance bump is going to 6 months or more. That, and the fact they advertise and market their new attractions pretty agressively.

Attendance dropped steeply at the end of 2001 and lasted throughout much of 2002 because of the terrorist actions on 9/11. Prior to that attendance across the 4 parks was 42.7 million for 2000. They didn't supass that number again until 2005, when they had 42.8 million visitors.
Prior to AK opening, the average daily attendance across the 3 parks was 32,500 visitors, which I would've imagined made the parks pretty crowded, or at least Epcot and MGM because those 2 parks were averaging right at 10 million visitors. You should note that in 2007/8, the average daily attendance across the 4 parks was 32,100, which puts them back at the levels of 1998.

Magic Kingdom and Epcot, while yes they were "fully developed", still made additions or changes to their attractions that stimulated return visits.

It's hard to say what the net effect of TSM is because of the rough economy and high gas prices last year. However, the attendance figures for 2008 show DHS had the highest growth rate at .95% compare to .53% of AK and 0 for both Epcot and MK. So, one could theorize (in my estimation at least) that TSM helped that park, and overall WDW attendance in 2008 as well.


BTW: If you're interested, I've compiled a spreadsheet that breaks down the park attendance figures for the last 10 years. It's pretty interesting. PM me and I will send you the link.

Grump....that's a great post....you seem to have spent alot of time looking at the numbers and analyzing them....

BUT....

there are a couple of things that are a little off...

First....the 2008 numbers would reflect nothing of the economy last year...those trips were by and large planned well before the Bush Bubble broke....


the same thing goes for the "trending up" numbers of MGM after midway....the visitors were coming by and large with absolutely no knowledge of the ride.....same with everest in 05. Remember: we that follow this everyday are in a minute minority....the lions share still simply book trips to "go to Didney to see mickey"

I would also argue that a single new attraction does not cause new travel to any statisical significance.....if you're going...you're going. And while those of us that live disney will maybe make a trip on occasion just to get in on something new....it's such a small percentage of their overal business that it really doesn't affect much. I would think more than actually generating new business...a new E ticket would cause people to alter which days they go to which parks....perhaps a second go to that particular park (there's your bump). But that would not generate any more revenue...it still is one big pot

The one exception is perhaps Florida residents....who have the means to squeeze in small trips just for new rides....they are a significant portion of the clientel...but as a former resident, i didn't see widespread pushing and shoving to get on something new immediately. They have all the time in the world to go when it's convenient

By the same token.....trips to WDW are still far too expensive to schedule just to see one ride when it opens for the vast majority of travelers. DVC has perhaps lessened that gap a little. But i would still surmise that at least 70% of the travelers are planning their trips because the timing and money are right...irregardless of whether there's a couple new attractions out of 150 or so to choose from...

And the one final thing.....the slowdown in 01-02 was certainly magnified by terrorist stuff (actually it was kinda irrational fear that did most of it...other thanthe victims (which were too many) and those in NY, PA, MD, and VA that were directly impacted...and the military that was called out afterward)...but the brakes screeched at WDW in 2001 months before....
I was there from 00-03...and after the milennium thing ended....there was a significant falloff...somewhat naturally.

Of these "15 month celebrations" Milennium was by far the biggest in terms of packing people in.....25th was a big one that started the trend....and 2.2 years of a bazillion dreams was more of a reflexion of the "let them eat cake" phoney money atmosphere that most recently crashed....but millenium was muchas grande.

After it ended....there just didn't seem to be much going on.....no new mainline attractions were coming...a lull that lasted 5 years until mission space, soarin, and everest...and it just seemed to be a natural drawback.

They followed with some ill conceived knee-jerks....most notably Dinorama and the "100 years of magic"

But it took a couple of years and about a trillion dollars in inflated accounting reports to get things cracking again for the boom that just recently ended....

September 2001 certainly put a big gash in the business....but the crack was already there....honestly (i can remember predicting that disney would go slash and burn and blame al qeuda......which they almost immediately did....but business was already down)

[GrumpyFan]

First....the 2008 numbers would reflect nothing of the economy last year...those trips were by and large planned well before the Bush Bubble broke....

I'm not going to try and argue everything you disputed, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree, but I will argue this point. The travel industry took a BIG hit last year due to the high gas prices and airfares, it's well documented.

the same thing goes for the "trending up" numbers of MGM after midway....the visitors were coming by and large with absolutely no knowledge of the ride.....same with everest in 05.

I would also argue that a single new attraction does not cause new travel to any statisical significance.....if you're going...you're going. And while those of us that live disney will maybe make a trip on occasion just to get in on something new....it's such a small percentage of their overal business that it really doesn't affect much.

Then how do you explain the higher numbers for AK & DHS last year? Coincidence? Perhaps, but I think it's a result of two things. 1) Advertising & word of mouth 2) Return visitors to experience again the two newest thrill rides. MK nor Epcot added anything of major significance, and hence their numbers were flat. I would dare to speculate that if DHS had not added TSM, they would've actually declined last year.

Of these "15 month celebrations" Milennium was by far the biggest in terms of packing people in.....25th was a big one that started the trend....and 2.2 years of a bazillion dreams was more of a reflexion of the "let them eat cake" phoney money atmosphere that most recently crashed....but millenium was muchas grande.

Actually, if you go back and look at the attendance figures, 2000 was a declining attendance year. The were down -.23%.

[lockedoutlogic]

I'm not going to try and argue everything you disputed, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree, but I will argue this point. The travel industry took a BIG hit last year due to the high gas prices and airfares, it's well documented.

Then how do you explain the higher numbers for AK & DHS last year? Coincidence? Perhaps, but I think it's a result of two things. 1) Advertising & word of mouth 2) Return visitors to experience again the two newest thrill rides. MK nor Epcot added anything of major significance, and hence their numbers were flat. I would dare to speculate that if DHS had not added TSM, they would've actually declined last year.


Actually, if you go back and look at the attendance figures, 2000 was a declining attendance year. The were down -.23%.

[/SIZE][/FONT]

First....you're right about the fuel crunch.....i was being too short term with that one...
Though....oil prices were in varying degrees of ridiculousocity for the last 6 years....
I think the widespread travel crunch affected more regional locations such as say....Mytle Beach...than they ever really put a dent into WDW. WDW defies logic in many ways.


The rise in attendance at MGM and AK is alot of overflow from MK and EPCOT....
It pretty much always has been a fallback for the big brother parks....that might explain alot of it if it was a good attendance year...which it certainly was.
Midway Mania was only online for what? 5 months last year?....and everest had been there for 3 years....so i still don't see the "one ride" correlation having much gravitas.

The millenium number was surprising....but remember that it also was fully underway in 1999....how do those numbers play out? if 99 was huge...and then it flattened in 2000...then that would still validate the effect of the Millenium.
Remember too the numbers are kinda weird now because of the complete bloating from 2004-2008. And I submit that funny money is almost the sole reason for that.....lots of travel when anybody can get a Discover with a 30,000 dollar limit.

And 2000 was....if memory serves....an astounding profit year for the time....so perhaps crowd levels remained the same....but they threw down alot of scratch. And we all know that that is the ONLY thing that really matters in Team Disney

well played though....touche'e

[big blue and hairy]

I'm not tryng to be mean or sarcastic, but every theme park expert or business expert I've read, has said the Expedition Everest is a huge reason why attendance at AK has risen. Do you know better than all of them?

Everyone who is saying well they'd just spend their money somewhere else in WDW, how the heck do you know that??! WDW may be the best thing in Orlando, but it's not the only thing. You don't think any of those people would go to Universal or Seaworld? One of the biggest reasons to build AK in the first place was to extend people's Disney vacations! It stands to reason without going to AK, the vacations could either get shorter or redirected.

[RBrooksC]

What I think is funny is there aren't many people who are looking at the business side of this. If the cost the fix the Yeti right now is outweighed by implementing new attractions, keeping the employees that are left (including keeping those blessed Unions happy), keeping costs in check, and keeping down the prices for visitors. If the ride is working and telling the story it is supposed to tell, then the priority of fixing the Yeti will be put on the back burner.

I fail to see how the Yeti not waving it's arm is that big of a deal. That should NEVER be a deal-breaker. Either you like the ride or you don't. The Yeti is such a small and fleeting part of the ride, that it doesn't even matter to me.

When you send your cards and letter to Disney expressing your disappointment, remember that you are sitting in your chair where a company's money is no object. Take a seat in the CFO's chair, pour over their Disney Financial statements before demanding the company go in and fix a very expensive prop.

[big blue and hairy]

Ummm....There are two pre-Everest coasters that come to mind, both at Universal Orlando.
"The amazing adventures of Spiderman" (O.K., I know this is not really a coaster) and "Revenge of the Mummy". Both feature multiple pauses in the ride with elaborate effects.

I beleive you confirmed the post you quoted. Spiderman is not a coaster, and Mummy is not pre-Everest.

[big blue and hairy]

What I think is funny is there aren't many people who are looking at the business side of this. If the cost the fix the Yeti right now is outweighed but implementing new attractions, keeping the employees that are left (including keeping those blessed Unions happy), keeping costs in check, and keeping down the prices for visitors. If the ride is working and telling the story it is supposed to tell, then the priority of fixing the Yeti will be put on the back burner.

I fail to see how the Yeti not waving it's arm is that big of a deal. That should NEVER be a deal-breaker. Either you like the ride or you don't. The Yeti is such a small and fleeting part of the ride, that it doesn't even matter to me.

When you send your cards and letter to Disney expressing your disappointment, remember that you are sitting in your chair where a company's money is no object. Take a seat in the CFO's chair, pour over their Disney Financial statements before demanding the company go in and fix a very expensive prop.

I agree completely, and I'm pretty sure several other posters do also. The only thing I'd like to see tweaked short term (of course long term I would like to see it fixed) is the speed of the strobes, it may have been highly tested, but some of my rides, I almost can't see the Yeti at all, and moving or not it's impressive.

[lockedoutlogic]

I'm not tryng to be mean or sarcastic, but every theme park expert or business expert I've read, has said the Expedition Everest is a huge reason why attendance at AK has risen. Do you know better than all of them?

Everyone who is saying well they'd just spend their money somewhere else in WDW, how the heck do you know that??! WDW may be the best thing in Orlando, but it's not the only thing. You don't think any of those people would go to Universal or Seaworld? One of the biggest reasons to build AK in the first place was to extend people's Disney vacations! It stands to reason without going to AK, the vacations could either get shorter or redirected.

every theme park expert i've every read (jim hill doesn't count) usually phrases it like this:

"Walt disney world is having record attendance...and they have new rides"

they are usually pretty careful not to attribute figures and profits to just one thing.....

But i can see your point.


Still...i'm gonna have to say that it would take alot to convince me that attendance goes up in a huge way just because of a new ride....

it's too small of a thing in the overall model at WDW.....and trips to disney are too expensive to just throw on a whim to get on a specific ride (i don't think anyone is giving this premise enough thought)

[big blue and hairy]

Still...i'm gonna have to say that it would take alot to convince me that attendance goes up in a huge way just because of a new ride....

it's too small of a thing in the overall model at WDW.....and trips to disney are too expensive to just throw on a whim to get on a specific ride (i don't think anyone is giving this premise enough thought)

I disagree.

1. You don't spend that much money on one attraction because it will have a negligible effect.

2. Right here on Intercot and on other Disney sites, I've also read many posts that are so happy the AK is not just a half day or once in a while park anymore.

3. Part of the increase in attendance is directly attributable to the coolness of the ride. Another part is that a very cool ride was added so there is more to do at AK.

Of course more people go and stay longer because of EE.

Also, your repeated arguement that EE can't be a great coaster because it's not the most technologically advanced is silly. The quality of the experience is what matters. I'm fairly certain that in a lot of ways Spiderman is more technologically advanced, but I much prefer the experience of EE.

I doubt anybody here doesn't want the Yeti fixed, but there is a time when it makes sense. Also, according to the insider, it's being worked on.

[Ian]

Still...i'm gonna have to say that it would take alot to convince me that attendance goes up in a huge way just because of a new ride....

Huh. I typically can find some common ground with you on most of what you say and I think that, by and large, we agree on more than we disagree on.

But I think you're completely wrong with this one. I, in fact, think it's the exact opposite. I bet if you had access to the numbers you would see an almost immediate spike in theme park attendance as soon as a new, big budget, highly publicized attraction is open.

I'm not talking about the Laugh Floor or minor additions like that. But your Everests, your Soarins, your Toy Story Manias ... I think they add immediately and impactfully to the bottom line from day one.

Do I have stats to back that up? No. Disney doesn't release numbers with enough granularity to prove that out. But to me it's common sense. Why? Why else would they spend hundreds of millions of dollars opening new blockbuster attractions?

I've seen Mufasa lurking around the boards lately ... I would love to hear him chime in on this topic ...

[big blue and hairy]

But I think you're completely wrong with this one. I, in fact, think it's the exact opposite. I bet if you had access to the numbers you would see an almost immediate spike in theme park attendance as soon as a new, big budget, highly publicized attraction is open.

I agree completely, that's the point I was also making.

Do I have stats to back that up? No. Disney doesn't release numbers with enough granularity to prove that out. But to me it's common sense. Why? Why else would they spend hundreds of millions of dollars opening new blockbuster attractions?

Yup.

I've seen Mufasa lurking around the boards lately ...

ooooooo....say it again... sorry...had to be said...

[Imagineer1981]

My opinion is (and continues to be) that the broken yeti has exactly a 0% impact on ... well ... anything! No one cares, for the most part.

Has anyone here said, "Well the yeti is broken. I'm not riding Everest!" Or, more importantly, I'm not going to Disney World!

To even further your point, I think the average guest, not the Disney diehards like ourselves, have no clue. They don't even know what A mode or B mode is. They know its a cool rollercoaster and at one point it stops and goes backwards, whips them around and they think they saw a giant yeti at the end, and they ABOSLUTELY love it. I bet you 99% of guests could ride it in A mode and B mode and NEVER NEVER NEVER know the difference

[GrumpyFan]

The rise in attendance at MGM and AK is alot of overflow from MK and EPCOT....
It pretty much always has been a fallback for the big brother parks....that might explain alot of it if it was a good attendance year...which it certainly was.

You make it sound like the only reason people go to AK/DHS is because the others are too crowded. I agree that AK and DHS are fallbacks when the others are heavily crowded, and neither are considered full day parks. But, they both still have enough attractions and the kind of attractions that people plan at least 1 day of their vacation for.

Midway Mania was only online for what? 5 months last year?....and everest had been there for 3 years....so i still don't see the "one ride" correlation having much gravitas.

Actually, TSM opened May 31st. So, they had a good 7 months which to me would've added a good bump.
It's been reported in several places, that since EE opened in April of 2006, AK has seen a big increase in attendance. And the figures would seem to back that up. Attendance at AK was up 8.5% in 2006 or over 700,000 additional visitors, which is pretty high if you ask me.

The millenium number was surprising....but remember that it also was fully underway in 1999....how do those numbers play out? if 99 was huge...and then it flattened in 2000...then that would still validate the effect of the Millenium.

Well, the numbers from 99 & 2000 are really kind of hard to discern, because of the recent opening of AK. Attendance at MK,Epcot & DHS were all off for 99, but alot of that could be attributed to the first full year of operation for AK which had an estimated 8.6 million visitors. 2000 appears like it was almost flat at least for MK, Epcot and DHS which saw only a 1-2% increase across those 3, but a -4.65% decrease for AK.

Remember too the numbers are kinda weird now because of the complete bloating from 2004-2008. And I submit that funny money is almost the sole reason for that.....lots of travel when anybody can get a Discover with a 30,000 dollar limit.

Wow, that's the first time I've heard that one... Interesting... I'll have to look into it...

And 2000 was....if memory serves....an astounding profit year for the time....so perhaps crowd levels remained the same....but they threw down alot of scratch. And we all know that that is the ONLY thing that really matters in Team Disney

Yeah, I seem to remember that. I would attribute it to the uniqueness and novelty of the 2000 merchandise. I think a lot of people wanted something that said "2000" on it.

Sending you a link to my spreadsheet with compiled attendance for the last 10 years. I think you'll find it interesting, if not debatable.

[Ian]

To even further your point, I think the average guest, not the Disney diehards like ourselves, have no clue. They don't even know what A mode or B mode is. They know its a cool rollercoaster and at one point it stops and goes backwards, whips them around and they think they saw a giant yeti at the end, and they ABOSLUTELY love it. I bet you 99% of guests could ride it in A mode and B mode and NEVER NEVER NEVER know the difference

I agree totally. I actually made that same point earlier in this thread.

[2Epcot]

I have to say, I need to stop being so busy and make more time for Intercot again. It has been interesting reading, about the Yeti. I'm glad I got a chance to see it working when I was there the last time, since if or when it may be working seems to be a mystery.

Not that they'll do it, but I'd bet that if they put out a donation box with a sign that said "help repair the Yeti", that they could collect the cost of repair from ride-goers within a year.

Just the thought of seeing a collection box in front of one of the rides makes me laugh. I don't know how many people would be willing to drop a few more buck in after spending hundreds to get into the park.

I wonder how long petition signers would last in front of the attraction at the park.

It's about quality....the quality of the ride and the product that Disney sells to us....

It should be fixed....because it SHOULD be embarrassing to Disney.

I agree, Disney should be embarassed that a signature element of the ride is not working. To me this would be the same as if the giant boulder from the Indiana Jones Adventure at Disneyland didn't start rolling toward the car at the end ... Or the giant dinasour that attacks just before the drop on Jurrasic Park at Universal wasn't there to make you look up just before the fall.

It's not that $2.1 million is too much money. It's that it's too much money to spend for, basically, zero return.

My opinion is (and continues to be) that the broken yeti has exactly a 0% impact on ... well ... anything! No one cares, for the most part.

Has anyone here said, "Well the yeti is broken. I'm not riding Everest!" Or, more importantly, I'm not going to Disney World!

No. Of course not. So you can't spend $2.1 million with no upside. There has to be an ROE for the spend or it's not a good decision.

Disney could always promote the "new and improved" Expedition Everest after the repair is done ... Throw in is some mist or fog, new lights, to satisfy the legal requirements of being new. That should increase attendance enough to make up for the costs. (No park has ever done that before.)

1. Disney cares very much that it's highly touted animatronic icon is not working. Joe Rhode is all over it.

2. The $2.1 million repair cost figure quoted in this thread is not correct. It is substantially more.

3. The yeti will be fixed, but no one wants to shut down the attraction during the extensive repair period. So the Imagineers must come up with some sort of screen or illusion that (first) insures the safety of riders passing through the construction area and (second) hides the construction work and (third) maintains the ride theme.

I hope the Yeti will be fixed. I don't mind paying the high prices as long as I feel like I'm getting the best entertainment.