Free Admission for Kids 3-5 Years Old
- Thread starter Merboy
- Start date
RE: FREE Admission for Kids 3 - 5 Years Old
this is a good deal with one exception. If you plan to eventually switch your kids to an annual pass, you may as well buy it now on the EZ pay system and lock in your rate for a while. I used the preschool pass first and then upgraded my kids later. In that time, the EZ pay option increased 3 dollars a month. Eventually, that $3 per month will cost me more than the amount I saved by using the free passes.
this is a good deal with one exception. If you plan to eventually switch your kids to an annual pass, you may as well buy it now on the EZ pay system and lock in your rate for a while. I used the preschool pass first and then upgraded my kids later. In that time, the EZ pay option increased 3 dollars a month. Eventually, that $3 per month will cost me more than the amount I saved by using the free passes.
RE: FREE Admission for Kids 3 - 5 Years Old
I think there are those who would argue against allowing small children into the park for free, regardless of the value of the offer. There is a debate to be had about the impact on the "culture" of BGW, as well as how the park prioritizes its limited resources.
I think there are those who would argue against allowing small children into the park for free, regardless of the value of the offer. There is a debate to be had about the impact on the "culture" of BGW, as well as how the park prioritizes its limited resources.
RE: FREE Admission for Kids 3 - 5 Years Old
Even Disney let's kids into their parks for free and they are among the greediest as they come.
Without kids coming into the park for free, BGW and SEAS for that matter lose a valuable revenue stream that would otherwise just stay home. The park system is doing more to encourage and bring together ideas for this revenue stream that is vital.
If all SEAS/BGW had was a bunch of college kids and older people with no kids honestly how long would the park stay open. It's simple economics, cut out one of the largest and most vital revenue streams and your doomed to failure.
Honestly I'm not irritated by the little kids in the park, I'm more irritated by the spoiled and entitled brats that the parents just drop off with no supervision or just let run rampant, knocking people down, cutting in line, and just acting all around foolish.
Nicole said:
Even Disney let's kids into their parks for free and they are among the greediest as they come.
Without kids coming into the park for free, BGW and SEAS for that matter lose a valuable revenue stream that would otherwise just stay home. The park system is doing more to encourage and bring together ideas for this revenue stream that is vital.
If all SEAS/BGW had was a bunch of college kids and older people with no kids honestly how long would the park stay open. It's simple economics, cut out one of the largest and most vital revenue streams and your doomed to failure.
Honestly I'm not irritated by the little kids in the park, I'm more irritated by the spoiled and entitled brats that the parents just drop off with no supervision or just let run rampant, knocking people down, cutting in line, and just acting all around foolish.
RE: FREE Admission for Kids 3 - 5 Years Old
You're exactly right. My wife and I have been on the EZ pay option and are grandfathered in at a great price for our two park passes. Our daughter is only 3, and even based on today's pricing her one pass will cost more per month than what my wife and I pay combined.
jpcommons said:
You're exactly right. My wife and I have been on the EZ pay option and are grandfathered in at a great price for our two park passes. Our daughter is only 3, and even based on today's pricing her one pass will cost more per month than what my wife and I pay combined.
RE: FREE Admission for Kids 3 - 5 Years Old
My youngest kiddo just turned 6. Dangit.
I do wonder what the park has been seeing in guest surveys and young-family revenues, to drive this decision. I also wonder what the typical revenue breakdown is in the young-family demographic, between admissions and food/concessions/games/souvenirs.
Also, not sure where else to put this thought, so I will park it here: Last year we (a family of 4, 2 of whom are elementary-age girls) went to Disney for a week. Right in the princess-madness sweet spot, age-wise. Not my first trip down there, but it had been a while. Thanks to a friend who works in the massive Disney travel ecosystem, we were able to keep the cost down to a "reasonable" $5-6k for what I would call a comfortable mid-range experience. We hit all 4 major Disney parks and a few other attractions. To the kids, the biggest attraction by far was the hotel pool. Second place was the princess stuff. Third place was everything else. There was a lot to enjoy, but still -- logistics down there can be nightmarish at times. Crowds can be horrifying year-round. Lots of cool attractions, but with that many people, even at off-peak times, the experience can frequently be the very opposite of enjoyable. Even the "easy" stuff doesn't seem to be all that easy at Disney. (Though the Magic Band system was pretty awesome.)
By contrast, every year we take a week-long summer trip to Williamsburg and stay at a nice resort in the area. Consistently: the pool is arguably every bit as nice as a mid-range Disney pool, especially considering the concessions they serve up cheap; the transportation is much easier despite the lack of buses, boats, monorails, helicopters, hot air balloons, etc.; crowds are manageable; the two parks provide plenty of entertainment and immersive thrills for all; the kids aren't dead on their feet and dragging by the end of the day; the vibe is lighter and more relaxed; some of the rides are actually more exciting than Disney's. It's not Disney, obviously, but that can actually be a good thing on multiple fronts. It's every bit as much of a vacation. Total cost for the week is a bit north of $1k up front, and then a few hundreds bucks more over the course of the week for food and goodies and such. Astoundingly inexpensive.
Is that comparison problematic? I'm not so sure it is. It's a week's vacation and I know several families who weigh BGW (or something like it) against Disney pretty regularly when planning vacations. We have brought a few of those families into the W-burg fold over the past 5 years, and they too are a bit incredulous at the ample offering for a small price tag. It's like a "discovery" which they should not have had to "discover" in the first place. It should have been known!
I worry about the future of certain better regional theme parks like BGW, which seek to occupy the space between raw-thrills venues like PKD and theme-first juggernauts like Universal. And I don't know enough (at all) about BGW's behind-the-scenes situation to confidently interpret this newly expanded free-kids policy as a concession to difficulties in attracting young families -- but doesn't it kinda feel like that? Williamsburg, with BGW, WC, historical attractions, parks, nice places to stay, and even the beach not-too-far-away, is IMO a slam dunk of a great vacation at a ridiculously low price. Why should it be necessary AT ALL to give away free admission to an expanded customer demographic?
So, to presume that I'm correct about any of this: is it the Orlando/Disney PR machine that sucks families away on one-way trips to the Disney universe? A lack of strong and coordinated marketing presence from Williamsburg and/or BGW itself to acquire new visitors? General social trends that drive people to want only the supposedly highest-octane theme park experience, leading them to Orlando regularly? Is something lacking at the park that would otherwise bring folks in? I've heard ideas here about IP, about on-property resorts, about... other stuff?
It worries me that over time, American enthusiasm for parks like BGW will slowly slip to levels that prevent the park from sustaining itself as we know it, much less growing. Against that concern, certain marketing changes are either an early indicator that continuing demographic troubles are afoot, or merely an avenue to commit the Type I error of believing the same. Not sure which it is.
My youngest kiddo just turned 6. Dangit.
I do wonder what the park has been seeing in guest surveys and young-family revenues, to drive this decision. I also wonder what the typical revenue breakdown is in the young-family demographic, between admissions and food/concessions/games/souvenirs.
Also, not sure where else to put this thought, so I will park it here: Last year we (a family of 4, 2 of whom are elementary-age girls) went to Disney for a week. Right in the princess-madness sweet spot, age-wise. Not my first trip down there, but it had been a while. Thanks to a friend who works in the massive Disney travel ecosystem, we were able to keep the cost down to a "reasonable" $5-6k for what I would call a comfortable mid-range experience. We hit all 4 major Disney parks and a few other attractions. To the kids, the biggest attraction by far was the hotel pool. Second place was the princess stuff. Third place was everything else. There was a lot to enjoy, but still -- logistics down there can be nightmarish at times. Crowds can be horrifying year-round. Lots of cool attractions, but with that many people, even at off-peak times, the experience can frequently be the very opposite of enjoyable. Even the "easy" stuff doesn't seem to be all that easy at Disney. (Though the Magic Band system was pretty awesome.)
By contrast, every year we take a week-long summer trip to Williamsburg and stay at a nice resort in the area. Consistently: the pool is arguably every bit as nice as a mid-range Disney pool, especially considering the concessions they serve up cheap; the transportation is much easier despite the lack of buses, boats, monorails, helicopters, hot air balloons, etc.; crowds are manageable; the two parks provide plenty of entertainment and immersive thrills for all; the kids aren't dead on their feet and dragging by the end of the day; the vibe is lighter and more relaxed; some of the rides are actually more exciting than Disney's. It's not Disney, obviously, but that can actually be a good thing on multiple fronts. It's every bit as much of a vacation. Total cost for the week is a bit north of $1k up front, and then a few hundreds bucks more over the course of the week for food and goodies and such. Astoundingly inexpensive.
Is that comparison problematic? I'm not so sure it is. It's a week's vacation and I know several families who weigh BGW (or something like it) against Disney pretty regularly when planning vacations. We have brought a few of those families into the W-burg fold over the past 5 years, and they too are a bit incredulous at the ample offering for a small price tag. It's like a "discovery" which they should not have had to "discover" in the first place. It should have been known!
I worry about the future of certain better regional theme parks like BGW, which seek to occupy the space between raw-thrills venues like PKD and theme-first juggernauts like Universal. And I don't know enough (at all) about BGW's behind-the-scenes situation to confidently interpret this newly expanded free-kids policy as a concession to difficulties in attracting young families -- but doesn't it kinda feel like that? Williamsburg, with BGW, WC, historical attractions, parks, nice places to stay, and even the beach not-too-far-away, is IMO a slam dunk of a great vacation at a ridiculously low price. Why should it be necessary AT ALL to give away free admission to an expanded customer demographic?
So, to presume that I'm correct about any of this: is it the Orlando/Disney PR machine that sucks families away on one-way trips to the Disney universe? A lack of strong and coordinated marketing presence from Williamsburg and/or BGW itself to acquire new visitors? General social trends that drive people to want only the supposedly highest-octane theme park experience, leading them to Orlando regularly? Is something lacking at the park that would otherwise bring folks in? I've heard ideas here about IP, about on-property resorts, about... other stuff?
It worries me that over time, American enthusiasm for parks like BGW will slowly slip to levels that prevent the park from sustaining itself as we know it, much less growing. Against that concern, certain marketing changes are either an early indicator that continuing demographic troubles are afoot, or merely an avenue to commit the Type I error of believing the same. Not sure which it is.
RE: FREE Admission for Kids 3 - 5 Years Old
Question- My family are pass holders. My wife, I, and my 8 yr old. We also have a 3 year old who was free until now. Will he be allowed into pass holders days, as we are all going as a family, in any way?
I would hope good customer services would allow him in with the free 3-5 pass with the rest of the family being pass holders.
Question- My family are pass holders. My wife, I, and my 8 yr old. We also have a 3 year old who was free until now. Will he be allowed into pass holders days, as we are all going as a family, in any way?
I would hope good customer services would allow him in with the free 3-5 pass with the rest of the family being pass holders.
RE: FREE Admission for Kids 3 - 5 Years Old
This is an exceptionally well-thought out and well-stated observation. I have two people that I vacation with. We're all three adults who are financially fine but they're a little older and further up the ladder, so to speak. That said, they *adore* going to Disney, particularly Epcot (because Magic Kingdom is oriented more towards children and frankly put, there are more of them in that park). When they met me I introduced them to Busch and they were blown away for all the reasons you mentioned: it's relatively inexpensive (especially relative to Disney), it's easy to get around, it's a park with quality entertainment and rides and experiences, and the hotel accommodations are usually comfortable. We try to go a number of times a year and are season passes, and gleefully purchased our passes because it's such a great deal, all things considered. And in my personal opinion I do think Disney is a brilliant monopoly on childhood. Its movies are hyped exponentially along with its merch, brand, and franchise specific to each release which then is parlayed into (among other things) "come to Disneyworld, it's the pinnacle of that thing you love". Personally I thought I was mostly immune to it, my favorite film of all time being Hocus Pocus. And then this happened. And you know what? I ate that shit UP! God I would have loved to be there and seen that. So moral of story: Disney is Disney for a reason. But that shouldn't suggest a good time (or even a better time) can't be had at another park such as Busch. Why? Because Busch offers a genuinely good time without the, to borrow your word, "nightmarish" hassle. That's the heart of Busch Gardens and the reason I come back again and again. Because it's not overrun with merch, brand, and franchise nonsense. It brings the people I'm with together because we're not constantly distracted by the everything-ness that Disney is.*
So having said that, I can't agree with you more. I worry that Busch will move away from this quality experience at its very fair pricetag because it's not the empire that Disney is. It still has to compete to stay alive because it's a business and a business is either growing or shrinking, unfortunately. I worry that Busch will try to emulate Disney and in doing so lose its soul. But I can't blame them for doing what they feel they have to. But I *can* stop going once I feel Busch has lost its identity and has become a wannabe-Disney like other parks we could mention. Then again, I don't know where I - a single adult - rank on Busch's list of target demographics; or if ditching my kind in favor of, say, yours with your two sweethearts benefits or hinders their bottomline profits.
* That said, Epcot has some astonishingly beautiful theming. This is obviously a question of re$ources and that's why Disney's theming is "superior" to that of Busch but even so, I love Busch's theming because it still has that kind of 70s-version-of-Europe flavor. I love that. It's sentimental to me, even. Disney could never (and *would* never) have that element. Also, my spellcheck is telling me that both "theming" and "themeing" are not real words.
halfabee said:
This is an exceptionally well-thought out and well-stated observation. I have two people that I vacation with. We're all three adults who are financially fine but they're a little older and further up the ladder, so to speak. That said, they *adore* going to Disney, particularly Epcot (because Magic Kingdom is oriented more towards children and frankly put, there are more of them in that park). When they met me I introduced them to Busch and they were blown away for all the reasons you mentioned: it's relatively inexpensive (especially relative to Disney), it's easy to get around, it's a park with quality entertainment and rides and experiences, and the hotel accommodations are usually comfortable. We try to go a number of times a year and are season passes, and gleefully purchased our passes because it's such a great deal, all things considered. And in my personal opinion I do think Disney is a brilliant monopoly on childhood. Its movies are hyped exponentially along with its merch, brand, and franchise specific to each release which then is parlayed into (among other things) "come to Disneyworld, it's the pinnacle of that thing you love". Personally I thought I was mostly immune to it, my favorite film of all time being Hocus Pocus. And then this happened. And you know what? I ate that shit UP! God I would have loved to be there and seen that. So moral of story: Disney is Disney for a reason. But that shouldn't suggest a good time (or even a better time) can't be had at another park such as Busch. Why? Because Busch offers a genuinely good time without the, to borrow your word, "nightmarish" hassle. That's the heart of Busch Gardens and the reason I come back again and again. Because it's not overrun with merch, brand, and franchise nonsense. It brings the people I'm with together because we're not constantly distracted by the everything-ness that Disney is.*
So having said that, I can't agree with you more. I worry that Busch will move away from this quality experience at its very fair pricetag because it's not the empire that Disney is. It still has to compete to stay alive because it's a business and a business is either growing or shrinking, unfortunately. I worry that Busch will try to emulate Disney and in doing so lose its soul. But I can't blame them for doing what they feel they have to. But I *can* stop going once I feel Busch has lost its identity and has become a wannabe-Disney like other parks we could mention. Then again, I don't know where I - a single adult - rank on Busch's list of target demographics; or if ditching my kind in favor of, say, yours with your two sweethearts benefits or hinders their bottomline profits.
* That said, Epcot has some astonishingly beautiful theming. This is obviously a question of re$ources and that's why Disney's theming is "superior" to that of Busch but even so, I love Busch's theming because it still has that kind of 70s-version-of-Europe flavor. I love that. It's sentimental to me, even. Disney could never (and *would* never) have that element. Also, my spellcheck is telling me that both "theming" and "themeing" are not real words.
RE: FREE Admission for Kids 3 - 5 Years Old
This has nothing to do with Disney, Universal or Orlando. BGW, as a regional theme park, has a different target market as far as demographics are concerned and they actually saw in increase in attendance from 2014 to 2015 (the 2016 figures will be released in a few weeks). This is nothing but a marketing tact to boost the gate numbers and increase in-park spending.
That will never happen. Regional and seasonal parks have been around a long time and are a part of Americana. As I pointed out above, BGW saw an increase in attendance. And as a matter of fact, the top visited regional and seasonal parks in North America all saw increased numbers from 2014-2015. Some parks don't even need to consistently add attractions to keep attendance steady (Canada's Wonderland is the poster boy for that).
I will say I'm curious if this new promo will work for the park. It remains to be seen if they can successfully give away a portion of the gate for free and boost attendance that results in increased revenue.
halfabee said:
This has nothing to do with Disney, Universal or Orlando. BGW, as a regional theme park, has a different target market as far as demographics are concerned and they actually saw in increase in attendance from 2014 to 2015 (the 2016 figures will be released in a few weeks). This is nothing but a marketing tact to boost the gate numbers and increase in-park spending.
That will never happen. Regional and seasonal parks have been around a long time and are a part of Americana. As I pointed out above, BGW saw an increase in attendance. And as a matter of fact, the top visited regional and seasonal parks in North America all saw increased numbers from 2014-2015. Some parks don't even need to consistently add attractions to keep attendance steady (Canada's Wonderland is the poster boy for that).
I will say I'm curious if this new promo will work for the park. It remains to be seen if they can successfully give away a portion of the gate for free and boost attendance that results in increased revenue.
RE: FREE Admission for Kids 3 - 5 Years Old
I'm not really worried about the turnstile clicker count; in fact I see it as only a very rudimentary measuring stick. Assuming there is any sensitivity of attendance figures to sweet deals (and BGW appears to believe there is), attendance figures can be engineered substantially as a function of offer richness. That's not the same thing as health.
To get a better (initial) feeling for year-to-year performance, I would want to know something like profitability per guest in each of a handful of key demographics -- how it looks in absolute terms and how it compares to each of the previous 5-10 years. If it's dropping, then elevated turnstile count is no consolation. Financial performance consists of many parts but this would be an interesting starting point.
As for target demographics, I don't know of a single "Williamsburg family" here in southeastern PA that wouldn't also presumably be on Disney's radar. That was also true when I lived in Maryland, and also when I lived inside the Beltway. The idea that somehow the Disney vs. SW demographics don't substantially overlap is, to me, a mystifying claim. Speaking as a data-driven marketing personalization guy: If you're going to Williamsburg and hanging out at theme parks with your family, Disney's marketing machine is highly likely to know about it. You will be demographically interesting to them.
I don't fear that BGW will disappear entirely as a gated attraction. That would be hard to believe. I do worry that in something like its current state the place might not prove truly sustainable over the years due to social trends and marketing effects. Financial pressure, sufficiently applied, likely would force hard decisions about keeping the park's loftier offerings vs. establishing a much heavier focus on simpler crowd-draw basics that tie more directly to either thrill or margin generation. That would be very unfortunate, as the nation is already full of regional amusement parks which do exactly that.
Agreed completely that in the case of this free-kids promo, giving away gate revenue is intended to drive elevated in-park revenues. ...or, perhaps, to merely retain revenue and margin in times of slow erosion. The difference there is between an expansion strategy driven by long-term customer value and a fallback tactic one would prefer to avoid were it not needed. The data needed to determine which of those two it actually is, as far as I know, is not publicly available.
I'm not really worried about the turnstile clicker count; in fact I see it as only a very rudimentary measuring stick. Assuming there is any sensitivity of attendance figures to sweet deals (and BGW appears to believe there is), attendance figures can be engineered substantially as a function of offer richness. That's not the same thing as health.
To get a better (initial) feeling for year-to-year performance, I would want to know something like profitability per guest in each of a handful of key demographics -- how it looks in absolute terms and how it compares to each of the previous 5-10 years. If it's dropping, then elevated turnstile count is no consolation. Financial performance consists of many parts but this would be an interesting starting point.
As for target demographics, I don't know of a single "Williamsburg family" here in southeastern PA that wouldn't also presumably be on Disney's radar. That was also true when I lived in Maryland, and also when I lived inside the Beltway. The idea that somehow the Disney vs. SW demographics don't substantially overlap is, to me, a mystifying claim. Speaking as a data-driven marketing personalization guy: If you're going to Williamsburg and hanging out at theme parks with your family, Disney's marketing machine is highly likely to know about it. You will be demographically interesting to them.
I don't fear that BGW will disappear entirely as a gated attraction. That would be hard to believe. I do worry that in something like its current state the place might not prove truly sustainable over the years due to social trends and marketing effects. Financial pressure, sufficiently applied, likely would force hard decisions about keeping the park's loftier offerings vs. establishing a much heavier focus on simpler crowd-draw basics that tie more directly to either thrill or margin generation. That would be very unfortunate, as the nation is already full of regional amusement parks which do exactly that.
Agreed completely that in the case of this free-kids promo, giving away gate revenue is intended to drive elevated in-park revenues. ...or, perhaps, to merely retain revenue and margin in times of slow erosion. The difference there is between an expansion strategy driven by long-term customer value and a fallback tactic one would prefer to avoid were it not needed. The data needed to determine which of those two it actually is, as far as I know, is not publicly available.
RE: FREE Admission for Kids 3 - 5 Years Old
So, I have a few thoughts. I'm sure they will all be unpopular.
1. I am not in favor of the push at both BGW and KD to bring in more young children. I see it as part of a larger movement to refocus attention and resources away from teens and young adults. Obviously theme parks have always been targeted at kids, but BGW and KD have never been just for the Sesame Street crowd. Both have great thrill ride collections. BGW's emphasis on animals and conservation appeals to a much older audience in many ways. I assume the shows are good for most adults?
By focusing resources on little kids, the attractions and events geared toward an older audience naturally suffer, because budgets are a zero sum game. This problem is magnified by the dwindling budgets both parks currently face. To put it bluntly, I see this as part of the growing problem at events like HOS and Haunt, which used to be for a much older crowd. Increasing the parks seem to want to cater to small children, which is ruining them for a lot of the rest of us.
I understand both parks' interest in trying to capture the pre-K market, but honestly, it is not good for me as an adult, who neither has small children, not wants my entertainment geared toward other's people's kids.
2. I also disagree with the notion that BGW is comparable to Disney. Sorry. I actively dislike most Disney IP, especially Princesses, but also everything Ears. I avoid Disney movies like the plague. I am still angry that Disney bought the Muppets. Despite all that. I enjoy Disney vacations much more than a trip to Williamsburg.
At the risk of exposing myself, I have to admit that I only stay at Deluxe Resorts. But my entire experience from accommodations to restaurants to customer service to basic logistics is always a million times better at Disney than BGW. To be honest, from a resort perspective, I'd rather visit Dollywood or Universal than any SEAS park.
Disney has every park I have ever visited beat, when I take into account the gestalt of my visit. For example, not even Universal has anything that can match Disney's MagicBands. When I was at the former in January, I had to carry my room key, annual pass, ExpressPass,and credit card separately. Since I had to put everything in a locker for several of the rides, I was faced with a catch-22: how do I show them my pass to use the ExpressPass lane, while leaving my purse in the locker? We ended up smuggling a wallet onto the ride, which didn't make me happy at all. Disney has solved that by giving me an integrated token that does everything, including capturing my (admittedly unwanted) ride photos.
The differences go far beyond mundane logistical details, however. Unlike BGW, Disney has created a complete and mostly self-contained resort area. The hotels, restaurants, and transportation are all integrated with the parks. The days that you don't go to the parks can be just of fun (or sometimes better) than the days when you are doing the rides. Because of the massive transportation system resort hopping and eating out are both fantastically easy. And the theming is exquisite. We actually go to Disney just for dinner on occasion, because so many of the restaurants are really interesting. I adore the afternoon tea at the Grand Floridian. The hotels, themselves, are amazing. And the customer service is phenomenal. One example of a memorable Disney experience that I have never seen matched, even at BGT, was our dinner safari at Animal Kingdom Lodge. We started with drinks in the lounge. Then we went out onto the savannah in a truck. Finally, we had a special multi-course African meal at Jiko that was fabulous.
Disney Springs is another example of where Disney kills the competition. While CityWalk was probably better than Downtown Disney, the new Disney Springs has fantastic food, amazing shops, and clever theming. BGW has nothing to which I could even compare it.
The parks, themselves, are slightly more complicated. I believe the thrill rides are much better at SEAS parks across the board. And SEAS animal attractions beat anything at Epcot or Animal Kingdom. That said, BGW seems to have walked away from the animal market, and honestly, doesn't seem interested in building extreme thrill rides anymore either. Meanwhile Disney has dramatically improved their in park food across the board. So, while I might have said I'd rather go to a SEAS park in the past, that is slowly changing.
Finally, shopping. I will admit that BGW merchandise has improved recently, but Disney is really the king. I think someone claimed the merch is targeted at kids, and I couldn't disagree more. I have Disney Park exclusive Pandora beads, and we have bought art and even imported housewares. Disney Springs is a monument to themed, adult products. And for people who do like the IP, Disney will sell them everything from themed aprons to high-end luggage.
I guess what I am trying to demonstrate, that while BGW has a great park, Disney offers a comprehensive and integrated experience that doesn't have many direct analogs, much less competitors. Obviously, the question of whether those things are worth the money is an individual decision, but for me, I would not be able to claim that BGW is an equal alternative.
So, I have a few thoughts. I'm sure they will all be unpopular.
1. I am not in favor of the push at both BGW and KD to bring in more young children. I see it as part of a larger movement to refocus attention and resources away from teens and young adults. Obviously theme parks have always been targeted at kids, but BGW and KD have never been just for the Sesame Street crowd. Both have great thrill ride collections. BGW's emphasis on animals and conservation appeals to a much older audience in many ways. I assume the shows are good for most adults?
By focusing resources on little kids, the attractions and events geared toward an older audience naturally suffer, because budgets are a zero sum game. This problem is magnified by the dwindling budgets both parks currently face. To put it bluntly, I see this as part of the growing problem at events like HOS and Haunt, which used to be for a much older crowd. Increasing the parks seem to want to cater to small children, which is ruining them for a lot of the rest of us.
I understand both parks' interest in trying to capture the pre-K market, but honestly, it is not good for me as an adult, who neither has small children, not wants my entertainment geared toward other's people's kids.
2. I also disagree with the notion that BGW is comparable to Disney. Sorry. I actively dislike most Disney IP, especially Princesses, but also everything Ears. I avoid Disney movies like the plague. I am still angry that Disney bought the Muppets. Despite all that. I enjoy Disney vacations much more than a trip to Williamsburg.
At the risk of exposing myself, I have to admit that I only stay at Deluxe Resorts. But my entire experience from accommodations to restaurants to customer service to basic logistics is always a million times better at Disney than BGW. To be honest, from a resort perspective, I'd rather visit Dollywood or Universal than any SEAS park.
Disney has every park I have ever visited beat, when I take into account the gestalt of my visit. For example, not even Universal has anything that can match Disney's MagicBands. When I was at the former in January, I had to carry my room key, annual pass, ExpressPass,and credit card separately. Since I had to put everything in a locker for several of the rides, I was faced with a catch-22: how do I show them my pass to use the ExpressPass lane, while leaving my purse in the locker? We ended up smuggling a wallet onto the ride, which didn't make me happy at all. Disney has solved that by giving me an integrated token that does everything, including capturing my (admittedly unwanted) ride photos.
The differences go far beyond mundane logistical details, however. Unlike BGW, Disney has created a complete and mostly self-contained resort area. The hotels, restaurants, and transportation are all integrated with the parks. The days that you don't go to the parks can be just of fun (or sometimes better) than the days when you are doing the rides. Because of the massive transportation system resort hopping and eating out are both fantastically easy. And the theming is exquisite. We actually go to Disney just for dinner on occasion, because so many of the restaurants are really interesting. I adore the afternoon tea at the Grand Floridian. The hotels, themselves, are amazing. And the customer service is phenomenal. One example of a memorable Disney experience that I have never seen matched, even at BGT, was our dinner safari at Animal Kingdom Lodge. We started with drinks in the lounge. Then we went out onto the savannah in a truck. Finally, we had a special multi-course African meal at Jiko that was fabulous.
Disney Springs is another example of where Disney kills the competition. While CityWalk was probably better than Downtown Disney, the new Disney Springs has fantastic food, amazing shops, and clever theming. BGW has nothing to which I could even compare it.
The parks, themselves, are slightly more complicated. I believe the thrill rides are much better at SEAS parks across the board. And SEAS animal attractions beat anything at Epcot or Animal Kingdom. That said, BGW seems to have walked away from the animal market, and honestly, doesn't seem interested in building extreme thrill rides anymore either. Meanwhile Disney has dramatically improved their in park food across the board. So, while I might have said I'd rather go to a SEAS park in the past, that is slowly changing.
Finally, shopping. I will admit that BGW merchandise has improved recently, but Disney is really the king. I think someone claimed the merch is targeted at kids, and I couldn't disagree more. I have Disney Park exclusive Pandora beads, and we have bought art and even imported housewares. Disney Springs is a monument to themed, adult products. And for people who do like the IP, Disney will sell them everything from themed aprons to high-end luggage.
I guess what I am trying to demonstrate, that while BGW has a great park, Disney offers a comprehensive and integrated experience that doesn't have many direct analogs, much less competitors. Obviously, the question of whether those things are worth the money is an individual decision, but for me, I would not be able to claim that BGW is an equal alternative.
RE: FREE Admission for Kids 3 - 5 Years Old
Comparing Disney to SEAS is like comparing apples and oranges. The two are on opposite sides of the spectrum.
For one even Joel Manby has stated over and over SEAS new business plan is to rethink to a more regional park system and market their system that way. DIS is world wide and markets to ever inch of the globe. You see this walking into a DIS park and literally dozens of foreign tour groups with hundreds tagging along. You don't ever see this at a SEAS park with the exception of SWO/BGT on a very much smaller scale when these groups take a day off from DIS.
Shopping and everything else is all again based on the marketing power of DIS as a corporation not just as a park system. Movies drive the parks, attractions, which drives shopping, merch and so on down the line. DIS can literally turn out dozens even hundreds of products for stores, parks, online in a matter of a short period of time with their buying power. Again something SEAS no longer has, maybe back under AB but no longer now.
Not that I'm totally disagreeing with your analogy on things but to compare how BGW places money towards kids and not adults (because there needs to be more money allocated evenly) yet make a comparison to DIS which is a fantasy land built upon childhood stories and a literal romper room with thousands of children running around 365 days a year. I'm just not so sure the argument holds much weight. And yes this is coming from someone that's been going to DIS for 30 years and a DVC member, maybe I'm jaded but I just don't see the argument.
I do also agree there needs to be more cooperation with both BGW/CW and Williamsburg/JCC/HRT/WATA to get transportation around the area running better for guests. It's been said for years but it falls on deaf ears of our local leaders in charge. All comes back to same sad story of "cost too much" and they fail to understand the economic growth yet raise taxes for example a 10% food tax locally.
I guess this has gotten a bit off topic and I'll end it there.
Comparing Disney to SEAS is like comparing apples and oranges. The two are on opposite sides of the spectrum.
For one even Joel Manby has stated over and over SEAS new business plan is to rethink to a more regional park system and market their system that way. DIS is world wide and markets to ever inch of the globe. You see this walking into a DIS park and literally dozens of foreign tour groups with hundreds tagging along. You don't ever see this at a SEAS park with the exception of SWO/BGT on a very much smaller scale when these groups take a day off from DIS.
Shopping and everything else is all again based on the marketing power of DIS as a corporation not just as a park system. Movies drive the parks, attractions, which drives shopping, merch and so on down the line. DIS can literally turn out dozens even hundreds of products for stores, parks, online in a matter of a short period of time with their buying power. Again something SEAS no longer has, maybe back under AB but no longer now.
Not that I'm totally disagreeing with your analogy on things but to compare how BGW places money towards kids and not adults (because there needs to be more money allocated evenly) yet make a comparison to DIS which is a fantasy land built upon childhood stories and a literal romper room with thousands of children running around 365 days a year. I'm just not so sure the argument holds much weight. And yes this is coming from someone that's been going to DIS for 30 years and a DVC member, maybe I'm jaded but I just don't see the argument.
I do also agree there needs to be more cooperation with both BGW/CW and Williamsburg/JCC/HRT/WATA to get transportation around the area running better for guests. It's been said for years but it falls on deaf ears of our local leaders in charge. All comes back to same sad story of "cost too much" and they fail to understand the economic growth yet raise taxes for example a 10% food tax locally.
I guess this has gotten a bit off topic and I'll end it there.
RE: FREE Admission for Kids 3 - 5 Years Old
Was that meant for me?
I believe the premise posed in this thread was that BGW is a cheaper, but fairly comparable, alternative to WDW. I think it is a reasonable theory to debate. I can see how and why people would opt for a BGW vacation instead of paying Disney's outrageous prices. I was merely countering that while I agree that BGW is a cheaper and fun alternative, I do not think it is equivalent.
And I agree that the conversation has gone a bit a field, but I think it all goes to the question of BGW's business choices.
Was that meant for me?
I believe the premise posed in this thread was that BGW is a cheaper, but fairly comparable, alternative to WDW. I think it is a reasonable theory to debate. I can see how and why people would opt for a BGW vacation instead of paying Disney's outrageous prices. I was merely countering that while I agree that BGW is a cheaper and fun alternative, I do not think it is equivalent.
And I agree that the conversation has gone a bit a field, but I think it all goes to the question of BGW's business choices.
RE: FREE Admission for Kids 3 - 5 Years Old
Yes some sorry thought I had quoted it out. Was just making a couple comparisons from my observations of going to DIS vs SEAS over the years. Epic fail on my part.
Nicole said:
Yes some sorry thought I had quoted it out. Was just making a couple comparisons from my observations of going to DIS vs SEAS over the years. Epic fail on my part.
RE: FREE Admission for Kids 3 - 5 Years Old
I asked, NOT because you should have quoted me (because we prefer you NOT quote a post, if your response follows immediately), but because I was confused by your tone, and wasn't sure your comments really were aimed at me. I never made the argument you appear to be dismissing and illogical:
"Not that I'm totally disagreeing with your analogy on things but to compare how BGW places money towards kids and not adults (because there needs to be more money allocated evenly) yet make a comparison to DIS which is a fantasy land built upon childhood stories and a literal romper room with thousands of children running around 365 days a year. I'm just not so sure the argument holds much weight. And yes this is coming from someone that's been going to DIS for 30 years and a DVC member, maybe I'm jaded but I just don't see the argument."
If you look at my post, I addressed two separate topics both of which were being discussed in this thread. In fact I explicitly separated them out. Specifically, I commented on the assumption that letting young children in for free is desirable, because I don't think it is. I also commented on the idea that BGW is a comparable destination to WDW, because, once gain, I believe it isn't.
I welcome debate, as long as I am not misquoted.
I asked, NOT because you should have quoted me (because we prefer you NOT quote a post, if your response follows immediately), but because I was confused by your tone, and wasn't sure your comments really were aimed at me. I never made the argument you appear to be dismissing and illogical:
"Not that I'm totally disagreeing with your analogy on things but to compare how BGW places money towards kids and not adults (because there needs to be more money allocated evenly) yet make a comparison to DIS which is a fantasy land built upon childhood stories and a literal romper room with thousands of children running around 365 days a year. I'm just not so sure the argument holds much weight. And yes this is coming from someone that's been going to DIS for 30 years and a DVC member, maybe I'm jaded but I just don't see the argument."
If you look at my post, I addressed two separate topics both of which were being discussed in this thread. In fact I explicitly separated them out. Specifically, I commented on the assumption that letting young children in for free is desirable, because I don't think it is. I also commented on the idea that BGW is a comparable destination to WDW, because, once gain, I believe it isn't.
I welcome debate, as long as I am not misquoted.
RE: FREE Admission for Kids 3 - 5 Years Old
Totally wth you on this. Which is why I said BGW's target market is different from WDW. As a regional park, BGW doesn't have the marketing reach, draw and accessibility as the mouse in Orlando. And for that matter, no other regional park chain does. It's also basically why Disney doesn't really give a crap about the demographics and target market of regional parks scattered throughout the country when they have a major international airport that easily funnels in 40 million plus visitors annually from all corners of the globe and a massive local population in a state that has three major cities within a few hours drive to Orlando.
As far as magic bands go, Disney has the technology patented, which is why you won't see other park chains use them. And because of the costs, the WDW resort is the only one using them right now. Disneyland is still using paper cards for fast passes.
That should say Disney created their own small and self-sustaining city.
CityWalk definitely has a better nightlife than Downtown Disney ever did. DTD, while it had great venues for clubs and restaurants, seemed really sprawling, disjointed and lifeless, especially compared to DTD at Disneyland, which has a total CityWalk vibe. The Disney Springs concept has much improved the area 10 fold over with the new shops and restaurants, and they still haven't finished expanding it.
If someone thinks Disney merch is targeted directly at kids, they have yet to properly shop throughout the entire world showcase at EPCOT! You don't see kids rushing to buy Guerlain perfume in France and a beer stein in Germany there.
Agree 100% with this. Because of the offerings and overall experience that the WDW resort has available, no other park chain really is an equal alternative. And IMO, the Disneyland Resort doesn't even compare (though I do love Disneyland more than Magic Kingdom but that's another discussion). WDW is in a class by itelf.
Nicole said:
Totally wth you on this. Which is why I said BGW's target market is different from WDW. As a regional park, BGW doesn't have the marketing reach, draw and accessibility as the mouse in Orlando. And for that matter, no other regional park chain does. It's also basically why Disney doesn't really give a crap about the demographics and target market of regional parks scattered throughout the country when they have a major international airport that easily funnels in 40 million plus visitors annually from all corners of the globe and a massive local population in a state that has three major cities within a few hours drive to Orlando.
As far as magic bands go, Disney has the technology patented, which is why you won't see other park chains use them. And because of the costs, the WDW resort is the only one using them right now. Disneyland is still using paper cards for fast passes.
That should say Disney created their own small and self-sustaining city.
CityWalk definitely has a better nightlife than Downtown Disney ever did. DTD, while it had great venues for clubs and restaurants, seemed really sprawling, disjointed and lifeless, especially compared to DTD at Disneyland, which has a total CityWalk vibe. The Disney Springs concept has much improved the area 10 fold over with the new shops and restaurants, and they still haven't finished expanding it.
If someone thinks Disney merch is targeted directly at kids, they have yet to properly shop throughout the entire world showcase at EPCOT! You don't see kids rushing to buy Guerlain perfume in France and a beer stein in Germany there.
Agree 100% with this. Because of the offerings and overall experience that the WDW resort has available, no other park chain really is an equal alternative. And IMO, the Disneyland Resort doesn't even compare (though I do love Disneyland more than Magic Kingdom but that's another discussion). WDW is in a class by itelf.
RE: FREE Admission for Kids 3 - 5 Years Old
My apologies wasn't attempting to misquote. More trying to compare how the thread became more like DIS vs SEAS or Coke Vs Pepsi.
In essence what I was attempting to get to was no park can appease 100% of visitors 100% the time. Even the most hardened DIS fanatics out there for every change, introduction of new product/options there is a subset that like/dislike same can be said for SEAS.
As a former BEC employee I certainly don't like what the company has become, some of their decisions, how they allocate money and certainly agree with your assessment of a more evenly balanced funding budget across the spectrum from kids to adults.
However to the point of the thread. If BGW/SEAS/KD and DIS for that matter shut the door and one of the largest demographics out there I.E. people with children either by offering free and/or reduced gate fare they will just stay home and the parks will be left with what teens, college kids, and single and older adults with no kids? Honestly how long economically could a park sustain themselves running a business such as that.
I guess I look at it from a business standpoint on why a park would wish to do this. Sure they miss out on the gate fare, but once they have those people in the park it's easier to keep them coming back and spending more knowing they can return without paying for the children and it's a relatively safe environment with things for the entire family to do.
However on the flip side of things. BGW now has multiple areas for said children. It's now time to add other attractions to the park for others to enjoy.
My apologies wasn't attempting to misquote. More trying to compare how the thread became more like DIS vs SEAS or Coke Vs Pepsi.
In essence what I was attempting to get to was no park can appease 100% of visitors 100% the time. Even the most hardened DIS fanatics out there for every change, introduction of new product/options there is a subset that like/dislike same can be said for SEAS.
As a former BEC employee I certainly don't like what the company has become, some of their decisions, how they allocate money and certainly agree with your assessment of a more evenly balanced funding budget across the spectrum from kids to adults.
However to the point of the thread. If BGW/SEAS/KD and DIS for that matter shut the door and one of the largest demographics out there I.E. people with children either by offering free and/or reduced gate fare they will just stay home and the parks will be left with what teens, college kids, and single and older adults with no kids? Honestly how long economically could a park sustain themselves running a business such as that.
I guess I look at it from a business standpoint on why a park would wish to do this. Sure they miss out on the gate fare, but once they have those people in the park it's easier to keep them coming back and spending more knowing they can return without paying for the children and it's a relatively safe environment with things for the entire family to do.
However on the flip side of things. BGW now has multiple areas for said children. It's now time to add other attractions to the park for others to enjoy.
RE: FREE Admission for Kids 3 - 5 Years Old
You may not have small children, but most of us who came to love Busch Gardens in their teens and twenties grow up and have them. What are we supposed to do then? Leave them with a babysitter and spend our day off without them? It's not easy explaining to a toddler that you're going to go do something fun and they can't go.
I can only speak for myself, but I'm sure other most parents would agree. Having a daughter, I look forward to experiencing the park in a whole new way. My top priority is no longer to ride every coaster. It's to make sure she has the best time possible after being away from me all week while I've been at work. There's nothing more I'd rather do at the park than watch her ride something new because she's finally tall enough or finally brave enough to give it a try. Those are memories that will last a lifetime for both of us - not me riding Griffon for the 30th time.
Getting back to the preschool pass, my wife and I are now paying full-price for our passes, yet we often don't get to ride much. Plus, our daughter can't ride the bigger more expensive rides. Having the pass helps to even things out financially, in accordance with the percentage of the attractions we do get to enjoy. Also, I'm sure bringing her frequently when she is younger will make it more likely that she will be purchasing adult passes on her own down the road. I bet she'll be there with her kids one day having the same experience all over again.
Without the preschool pass, I could see how young families may stop frequenting the park until their children get a bit older to fully enjoy it. Even if the kids are getting in free, the parents spend a lot each visit on foods, drinks, games, souvenirs, etc. It seems like a smart business decision to me.
Nicole said:
You may not have small children, but most of us who came to love Busch Gardens in their teens and twenties grow up and have them. What are we supposed to do then? Leave them with a babysitter and spend our day off without them? It's not easy explaining to a toddler that you're going to go do something fun and they can't go.
I can only speak for myself, but I'm sure other most parents would agree. Having a daughter, I look forward to experiencing the park in a whole new way. My top priority is no longer to ride every coaster. It's to make sure she has the best time possible after being away from me all week while I've been at work. There's nothing more I'd rather do at the park than watch her ride something new because she's finally tall enough or finally brave enough to give it a try. Those are memories that will last a lifetime for both of us - not me riding Griffon for the 30th time.
Getting back to the preschool pass, my wife and I are now paying full-price for our passes, yet we often don't get to ride much. Plus, our daughter can't ride the bigger more expensive rides. Having the pass helps to even things out financially, in accordance with the percentage of the attractions we do get to enjoy. Also, I'm sure bringing her frequently when she is younger will make it more likely that she will be purchasing adult passes on her own down the road. I bet she'll be there with her kids one day having the same experience all over again.
Without the preschool pass, I could see how young families may stop frequenting the park until their children get a bit older to fully enjoy it. Even if the kids are getting in free, the parents spend a lot each visit on foods, drinks, games, souvenirs, etc. It seems like a smart business decision to me.