Hacker News Reader

Comment by mdorazio | Hacker News Reader

> Prices kept going up and more dates kept getting blocked out.

> Eventually, the park got so crowded that it really wasn't fun to go.

If prices were going up and attendance was still rising, Disney had two options: 1) keep raising prices to the point where attendance rates dropped to a manageable level, or 2) keep prices fixed and put stricter caps on attendance for specific dates. Being the cutthroat megacorp that it is, Disney picked option #1 because it's more profitable. If attendance drops enough, prices will go back down again.

View on HN

> Being the cutthroat megacorp that it is, Disney picked option #1 because it's more profitable.

The comment you're responding to, and the original piece, both clearly state that Disney picked option #1 and option #2. What did you think "more dates kept getting blocked out" meant?

Or (3) stop the inane practice of selling seasonal/annual passes. That's added crowding without corresponding revenue.

To alleviate long waits for rides, they should go back to an incremental fee per ride model, like they used to have (A/B/C/D/E ticket rides).

3) build more parks?

You have to fund that somehow so ... prices go up! Real estate isn't infinite, but Disney World in Florida is expanding now more than ever. If they ever have to build a new set of parks elsewhere, real estate prices are going to be ridiculous, and you have to buy it somehow so ... prices go up!

I don't see how increasing supply brings prices down at Disney - they'll hike the price now to fund it, then they'll hike prices again to control attendance.

Buy Disney stock.

>You have to fund that somehow so ... prices go up! Real estate isn't infinite, but Disney World in Florida is expanding now more than ever. If they ever have to build a new set of parks elsewhere, real estate prices are going to be ridiculous, and you have to buy it somehow so ... prices go up!

Why raise prices on consumers when you can fund a new park with the $12.6 billion in profit they earned in 2018?

Edit: I'm not the most fiscally-savvy person, so it would be cool if someone explained why I might be wrong rather than just hitting the downvote button and walking away.

Why use our precious profits when people will indeed pay higher prices to visit the parks? Shareholders don't like spending money, even when they have it. They'd rather increase revenue and then siphon a bit off of that for spending. Once it's listed as 'profit', executives, boards, and shareholders are loathe to spend it at all.

Anaheim is landlocked, it would cost them several billion dollars just to buy more land in Anaheim alone, the odds of more park in Anaheim are basically zero.

IIRC, Walt Disney practically begged friends and associates to buy up the land surrounding Disneyland, and always lamented the cheap motels and establishments that quickly proliferated outside the park. But he maxed out, mortgaged and bet pretty much every penny of the studio (and personally) to get the park built at all. There was simply no money left to buy up any more orange groves.

I personally wish that Disney's America park was built...

I wouldn't be shocked if a lot of reasons that failed to get off the ground are the same reasons holding back new parks in north america.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com