Pandora: The World of Avatar Announcement, Construction, & Preview Discussion

[Parkscope Joe]

For reference, Everest gave AK a 8.6% increase [1]

[1] Disney Rides Everest To New Popularity - tribunedigital-orlandosentinel

(Seriously, read the source! Talks about Universal pre-Potter and it's crazy to think how the resort has grown)

Yup, and what I've heard is that Disney was not happy with Everest because it was supposed to increase the time spend at the park and per guest spending.

 

[Nick]

Water parks only do like a million or so guests or am I misremembering the numbers?

The top water parks do over 2 million. Of course Wet n' Wild did about 1.3 Million (according to TEA, so take it for what it's worth) so really the 1.3M is a transfer and any gain from there is what Volcano Bay is really adding.

 

[quinnmac000]

I am thinking there is a lot more stuff not being advertised yet about Volcano bay that they are savingfor the final push that will help explain why they are being so bold with the price.

 

[Nick]

I am thinking there is a lot more stuff not being advertised yet about Volcano bay that they are savingfor the final push that will help explain why they are being so bold with the price.

I think it's simple why the price is so bold: They are advertising it as a third park. They have TapuTapu to advertise. They will have the tallest body slide in the world to advertise. VB will have more attractions at open than BB or TL have after 22 and 28 years of operation respectively.

Their boldness is simply them saying "We have the best water park in the world" and they are pricing it as such. A premium product.

 

[quinnmac000]

I think it's simple why the price is so bold: They are advertising it as a third park. They have TapuTapu to advertise. They will have the tallest body slide in the world to advertise. VB will have more attractions at open than BB or TL have after 22 and 28 years of operation respectively.

Their boldness is simply them saying "We have the best water park in the world" and they are pricing it as such. A premium product.

Still it would be one of the world's most expensive waterparks and those two things don't justify the pricing unless they are certain extras. But to get back to the first part of the question beforehand with Volcano Bay being expensive and how it will do attendance wise against Pandora. I think Volcano Bay will have a better return of investment while Pandora gets better attendance however not enough to offset its costs. I don't think food and drink are going to be special enough for them to make good amount off of and I think merch outside of potentially pins and t-shirts will fly off shelves unless James Cameron decided to go the cute route for the creatures of Pandora which I doubt.

Pandora's biggest asset is no matter what certain people will always go to animal kingdom. That should assist.

 

[GadgetGuru]

I think it also depends on the type of merch that Avatar sells. I don't have data for this, but a lot of the popular Potter merch is more premium + expensive than the average Universal merch. If Disney could successfully sell smaller amounts of expensive stuff in Pandora, it could easily increase guest spending.

 

[Nick]

Volcano Bay will definitely have the better ROI. I mean we're comparing a land rumored to cost $1B (and without any obvious merch that I can think of that would fly off the shelves) to a water park, which, besides Krakatau, I expect was pretty cheap to build.

I'd wager a guess it cost less than Diagon.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

I'd wager a guess it cost less than Diagon.

*Ron Howard* It didn't.

 

[Nick]

*Ron Howard* It didn't.

Either way, it's still gonna have better ROI

 

[Disneyhead]

Volcano Bay will pay for itself with Rum Drinks alone.

 

[SkiBum]

Volcano Bay will pay for itself with Rum Drinks alone.

Depends on how much you go? I think that Pandora will increase attendance at AK with a larger bump initially and then some sustained growth. Not as big as Potter, though. Pandora will give guests a reason to stay longer, although I figure that the lines for both rides will remain very long as there aren't enough signature attractions to spread the crowds out. If more people stay throughout a day, they'll buy more which is how Disney is probably hoping to recoup the cost. Still, a billion dollars is going to take some time to recoup.

 

[LieutLaww]

I may have to go on a bit of a media blackout as Pandora gets closer to opening as I will be at WDW in Oct and want to experience the land without having watched all the land/ride walkthroughs that will inevitably come out.

 

[UNIrd]

They need to figure out a way to make more money off Pandora. Make it a separate nighttime experience, add a third Avatar VR upcharge attraction, or something.

Universal is getting bigger returns on smaller investments. Disney needs to figure out that formula.

 

[Mad Dog]

Pandora, at this point, doesn't seem to have anything but a gift shop, a quick service restaurant and a drink stand to generate income. It seems to be a beautiful land, I'm sure it will get great foot traffic,but there's not enough there to generate anything near Potter level merchandise/food/beverage sales. And that's besides the point of not having any really dynamic merchandise that people just "have" to buy. .....Pandora will probably "look" really successful. But, as many have said, it's return on investment will probably not reach positive territory.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

Pandora, at this point, doesn't seem to have anything but a gift shop, a quick service restaurant and a drink stand to generate income. It seems to be a beautiful land, I'm sure it will get great foot traffic,but there's not enough there to generate anything near Potter level merchandise/food/beverage sales. And that's besides the point of not having any really dynamic merchandise that people just "have" to buy. .....Pandora will probably "look" really successful. But, as many have said, it's return on investment will probably not reach positive territory.

In fairness Disney also opened a new fancy sit down dining location and lounge RIGHT NEXT DOOR. I think their cost justification and quantifying the demand accounted for people staying in the park significantly longer, which I don't think will be the case.

 

[GAcoaster]

I think Pandora will see a spike attendance for DAK and for Disney overall, but I just think the ROI on a billion dollar expansion will be a lot longer coming for them. I'd guess that VB will have a price tag of about 1/4 of Pandora and will recoup that much faster in extended stays at Universal. I don't see people booking extra days at Disney just to experience Pandora. It will help Disney fill rooms which have been at less than stellar occupancy rates.

 

[Mad Dog]

For reference, Everest gave AK a 8.6% increase [1]

[1] Disney Rides Everest To New Popularity - tribunedigital-orlandosentinel

(Seriously, read the source! Talks about Universal pre-Potter and it's crazy to think how the resort has grown)

Boy, did those guys ever have a defective crystal ball in 2006. They really couldn't have been any more wrong with their prediction of the future. They doubted & questioned Universal saying they were going to start spending more on new attractions ($110 million at that point). They quoted a so called expert opinion,"Parks start thinking small. If Universal is poised to announce major new rides, the move would part with a trend that has been gaining momentum in the past couple of years. Despite rides like Expedition Everest , most theme parks are getting away from spending money on big new rides because such investments haven't paid off". Lesson: Don't doubt Universal...Since that point in time: Simpsons, Rip Ride Rocket, huge Hogsmeade Expansion with FJ and coaster redo's, Spider Man upgrade, Hulk rebuild & upgrade, Reign of Kong, Transformers, Despicable Me, Fallon, F&F coming, Springfield, huge Diagon/London Expansion with Gringotts & Hogwart's Express, Volcano Bay, plus all the new shows, parades, night water show, and Nintendo & whatever else coming. And that prompted Disney to get off of their butt with Pandora, NFL, SWL and TSL coming. Wow, they couldn't have been more wrong.

 

[Alicia]

In fairness Disney also opened a new fancy sit down dining location and lounge RIGHT NEXT DOOR. I think their cost justification and quantifying the demand accounted for people staying in the park significantly longer, which I don't think will be the case.

Yes. This is a very good point. Also, if anyone would like to enjoy a quiet drink and appetizer at the Nomad Lounge, overlooking a quiet empty bridge and water, now is the time. Once Pandora opens this place is gonna be packed, noisy, and overlooking a very crowded bridge to Pandora. Right now it's romatic. Enjoy that while you can.

 

[epcyclopedia]

Boy, did those guys ever have a defective crystal ball in 2006. They really couldn't have been any more wrong with their prediction of the future. They doubted & questioned Universal saying they were going to start spending more on new attractions ($110 million at that point). They quoted a so called expert opinion,"Parks start thinking small. If Universal is poised to announce major new rides, the move would part with a trend that has been gaining momentum in the past couple of years. Despite rides like Expedition Everest , most theme parks are getting away from spending money on big new rides because such investments haven't paid off". Lesson: Don't doubt Universal...Since that point in time: Simpsons, Rip Ride Rocket, huge Hogsmeade Expansion with FJ and coaster redo's, Spider Man upgrade, Hulk rebuild & upgrade, Reign of Kong, Transformers, Despicable Me, Fallon, F&F coming, Springfield, huge Diagon/London Expansion with Gringotts & Hogwart's Express, Volcano Bay, plus all the new shows, parades, night water show, and Nintendo & whatever else coming. And that prompted Disney to get off of their butt with Pandora, NFL, SWL and TSL coming. Wow, they couldn't have been more wrong.

That "trend" is the result of a research study that Eisner had done. It's published in some book but I'll have to look it up another time. The study said that investment in attractions doesn't increase income. It's very flawed and very silly but was touted at the undisputed truth for a while.

 

[Mad Dog]

That "trend" is the result of a research study that Eisner had done. It's published in some book but I'll have to look it up another time. The study said that investment in attractions doesn't increase income. It's very flawed and very silly but was touted at the undisputed truth for a while.

So much for the validity of some studies.