PDA

View Full Version : Theme Park attendance estimates released - Record 112 Million Visit Disney Parks


crazy4wdw
04-04-2007, 01:24 PM
Theme Park attendance estimates released

posted by Scott Powers on Apr 4, 2007 11:47:12 AM

The new Expedition Everest roller coaster helped boost Disney's Animal Kingdom's attendance by 8.6 percent to 8.9 million people last year, the largest jump at any major theme park, according to new estimates produced by TEA Inc. and Economics Research Associates for Park World and InPark magazines.

Their 2006 theme park attendance research continues annual work ERA did for many years for Amusement Business magazine until that publication closed last year. In most cases, including with Disney and Busch Entertainment parks, attendance figures are never publicly released. The unofficial ERA estimates are the most-commonly cited and rarely publicly-contested numbers within the industry.

As usual, Walt Disney World's Magic Kingdom came out on top in 2006, with an estimated 16.6 million visitors. The rest of the top 10 North American parks were: Disneyland (14.7 million,) Epcot (10.4 million,) Disney-MGM Studios (9.1 million,) Animal Kingdom, Universal Studios Orlando (6 million,) Disney's California Adventure (5.9 million,) SeaWorld Orlando (5.7 million,) Islands of Adventure (5.3 million) and Universal Studios Hollywood (4.7 million.)

crazy4wdw
04-04-2007, 01:27 PM
From Local6.com (WKMG in Orlando)

Record 112 Million Guests Visited Disney Theme Parks Worldwide

More Than 60 Million Visited Central Fla. Attractions

An estimated 112 million people traveled to Disney theme parks worldwide last year, setting a record, according to a new amusement industry survey.

The report showed that Disney's Magic Kingdom was the most visited theme park in the nation with an estimated 16.6 million guests.


Disneyland in California was the second most visited park in the survey followed by Epcot, Disney-MGM and Animal Kingdom.

The report showed that all of the parks welcomed more guests than the year before, Local 6 reported.

Universal-Orlando finished in sixth place in the survey, which is up slightly from the year before and SeaWorld-Orlando was also up, the report said.

The survey showed that only Universal's Island's of Adventure dropped in attendance.

It was also estimated that 62 million people visited Central Florida theme parks last year.

erikthewise
04-04-2007, 02:53 PM
A link to the figures:

http://www.connectingindustry.com/pdfs/TEA-ERAAttendance06.pdf

YoHo
04-04-2007, 03:04 PM
So Disney finally beat their pre-9/11 figure.

MJMcBride
04-04-2007, 06:59 PM
It does seem more crowded

I noticed DAK had the biggest increase (probably E:E and has narrowed the gap with MGM

http://www.mouseextra.com/category/extra-extra/

raidermatt
04-05-2007, 01:28 AM
It does seem more crowded

I noticed DAK had the biggest increase (probably E:E and has narrowed the gap with MGM

http://www.mouseextra.com/category/extra-extra/

I'd be surprised if AK doesn't pass MGM in '07. The Nemo show is still fairly new, the Yak on the Yeti restaurant will open this summer, and MGM's TSMania doesn't open until '08.

Big Dipper
04-05-2007, 01:41 AM
The OP has mixed numbers for DAK. At one point it says 8.9 million. Later it says 6 million. Which one is correct?

I find the DCA numbers interesting. For all the bashing this park receives, it is still in the top 10? Sure it's not close to Disneyland's numbers, but it still beat out 2 Universal parks and only one non-Disney park had higher numbers
(100,000) than DCA.

raidermatt
04-05-2007, 01:50 AM
The OP has mixed numbers for DAK. At one point it says 8.9 million. Later it says 6 million. Which one is correct?

I think the 6 million is actualy for USF. The quote has no number after AK, which was just an oversite. It's 8.9.


I find the DCA numbers interesting. For all the bashing this park receives, it is still in the top 10? Sure it's not close to Disneyland's numbers, but it still beat out 2 Universal parks and only one non-Disney park had higher numbers
(100,000) than DCA.

True, but we have to look at the numbers in context. It's across form DL, which drew nearly 15 million people and admission is sometimes free when you purchase a DL ticket. If it had to stand on its own, it would certainly drop back in the pack. Conversely, put another park a few short steps from DL and certainly its numbers would improve.

The company itself has admitted the park has issues and needs fixing. It's one thing when Disney claims a success in spite of the facts, but in this case, they are acknowledging the problem, so we should probably just agree with them.

Big Dipper
04-05-2007, 11:17 AM
I think the 6 million is actualy for USF. The quote has no number after AK, which was just an oversite. It's 8.9.
Thanks. The way I read it looked like AK and USF were both in the 6M category. I'm glad to see that AK attendence is picking up. I think it can take up to ten years for a park to find it's audience.




True, but we have to look at the numbers in context. It's across form DL, which drew nearly 15 million people and admission is sometimes free when you purchase a DL ticket. If it had to stand on its own, it would certainly drop back in the pack. Conversely, put another park a few short steps from DL and certainly its numbers would improve.

The company itself has admitted the park has issues and needs fixing. It's one thing when Disney claims a success in spite of the facts, but in this case, they are acknowledging the problem, so we should probably just agree with them.
I agree with your statement and agree that mistakes were made with DCA. But given it's proximity to DL and it's reputation, how much repeat business is it getting? Do people skip the park on return visits, forcing the attendence numbers to come from somewhere else? Or do people just drop in to DCA to ride Soarin', Screamin', ToT and GRR, see Aladdin and then leave? I like to stretch my day out there as much, but I admit it's not that easy to do without variety.

raidermatt
04-05-2007, 12:07 PM
It seems that it gets repeat business from AP holders who hit the major rides and sometimes catch the Electrical Parade. Also the locals who take advantage of the various promotions that run, like the "buy one park day get a second at the other park free".

Then it also seems to get business from out-of-state visitors, who don't know as much about the park before they enter, and also don't seem to end up as down on it after they visit it. Nobody says it's of the same standard as DL, but to an out of state visitor, at least the overall California experience is somewhat unique to them.

dvc_john
04-05-2007, 12:57 PM
Stupid question:

When you visit more than 1 park in a day (park hopper or AP), how do they count that? One for each park visited, or just one for the day (1st park visited?)?

Guess this question would apply mainly to WDW, DLR, and USF/IOA.

raidermatt
04-05-2007, 01:53 PM
It's actually a very good question.

Since Disney doesn't release attendance figures, as far as I know we only have "unofficial" info on how they count it.

But everything seems to point to them counting the first park entered only.

YoHo
04-05-2007, 08:09 PM
Which would still inflate numbers.

For instance, I have a DL AP, and often, We'll go on Soarin first thing which means I count as a visit to DCA for the day even though I only spent like 20-30 minutes in the park.

raidermatt
04-06-2007, 03:15 AM
Which would still inflate numbers.

For instance, I have a DL AP, and often, We'll go on Soarin first thing which means I count as a visit to DCA for the day even though I only spent like 20-30 minutes in the park.

Yup, the norm for park hoppers is to go to DCA first, which would not only inflate DCA's number, but also suppress DL's number.

MJMcBride
04-06-2007, 08:05 AM
I'd be surprised if AK doesn't pass MGM in '07. The Nemo show is still fairly new, the Yak on the Yeti restaurant will open this summer, and MGM's TSMania doesn't open until '08.

I always thought DAK was the better park anyway

Disneybag
04-06-2007, 09:05 AM
I always thought DAK was the better park anyway

I'd agree with that. For me, there isn't much past Sunset at MGM. At least AK makes me walk from side of the park to the other to visit my favorite attractions.

raidermatt
04-06-2007, 11:43 AM
I always thought DAK was the better park anyway

I think MGM could have been a lot more than what its become. Certainly AK is more cohesive. There's issues there, but not like with MGM. AK also has a logical layout, unlike MGM.

They're both way short on attractions.

For me personally, I like the feel of AK better, but MGM still has better attractions. Though I've yet to see the Nemo musical.

wdw4us2
04-06-2007, 01:22 PM
Well, MGM has certainly gone downhill in the past few years. Attractions close with nothing to replace them. Plus, they have gone too far away from the original intent - seeing and learning how they do things in the movies and TV.

They've closed Superstar Television, Hunchback of Notre Dame show, Animation Tour (the current one is a joke), The Lottery Winner/Honey I Shrunk the Kids Stunt, The Monster Sound Show (Sounds Dangerous is a great place for a nap).

It just seems like after they put in ToT and RnR they gave up on their original concept completely.

DC7800
04-06-2007, 05:12 PM
Counting only the first park visited in a day would indeed seem to hurt DL (and Epcot), while helping DCA and perhaps Animal Kingdom - the 'half-day' park argument, where you spend the rest of the day somewhere else (like an evening at Epcot, perhaps, but only AK gets 'credit' for the visit).

DCA, already an admitted failure, looks even worse when you realize a significant portion of its attendance is really just DL visitors that it got the attendance credit for (instead of DL).

But would such distinctions be accurately reflected in the estimated ERA numbers? They lack access to WDW's park-hopping statistics, potentially making it difficult to determine just which park gets 'credit' for a guest visit.

ERA's figures are said to be rarely questioned, but how do they arrive at their figures?

dunnhorn
04-06-2007, 09:54 PM
If their numbers are up to pre-9/11 numbers, then they need to reopen some restaurants and add more services. PLEASE. Restaurants like Spoodles (remember the fabulous brunch) and Ariel's (at Beach club) as well as others started limiting meals and offerings shortly after 9/11 when the parks were deserted.

We were there last week and it was CROWDED. Yet, many of the food vendors in EPCOT were closed! If we were seeing record crowd numbers and the vendors were not open, just when was Disney planning on selling food from these places?

We had to wait in like for 40 minutes for food at the Electric Umbrella.

MasterShake
04-09-2007, 10:31 AM
I'm wondering where Another Voice is on this thread. I know that just a couple of weeks ago AV was bashing Disney (as usual) and citing the fact that they had yet to break records set in 2001. He used that fact as an indication that Disney World was on the decline on the "New Four Seasons Timeshare on Disney Property and Value Oriented West Side" thread. I agreed with some of what AV said on this thread, but I got to say that MassJester was right about the attendance records.

DancingBear
04-09-2007, 10:37 AM
I understand that A-Vs mostly off-line for a while. The point at the time was that it was taking WDW a long time to recover from pre-9/11 numbers compared to other vacation destinations. That point may still stand. Another point was that Disney has had to offer a lot of discounts to generate WDW attendance, and sure enough the numbers from the SEC filings show that although Parks Revenue has increased substantially since pre-9/11, Parks Operating Income has actually declined.

raidermatt
04-09-2007, 12:34 PM
AV is unavailable for awhile.

But yes, the point still stands. Other vacation destinations reached those pre 9/11 levels as early as 2003/2004. WDW reaching them in 2006 doesn't invalidate the point at all.

MasterShake
04-09-2007, 12:47 PM
I understand that A-Vs mostly off-line for a while. The point at the time was that it was taking WDW a long time to recover from pre-9/11 numbers compared to other vacation destinations. That point may still stand. Another point was that Disney has had to offer a lot of discounts to generate WDW attendance, and sure enough the numbers from the SEC filings show that although Parks Revenue has increased substantially since pre-9/11, Parks Operating Income has actually declined.

He had a lot of points in that discussion and as I stated some I think were valid. However, he clearly stated several times that attendance was down and the root cause was the poor product/service that Disney was putting out. Here are a few quotes that I am referring too:

Originally Posted by Another Voice
WDW has never had a slump in attendance as long and deep as what it is suffering today. It’s direct competition – Hawaii. National Parks, other destinations – are now beating all time records. Disney has yet to even come close to a “9/11 recovery”.

Originally Posted by Another Voice
But the Company is trying to make "Disney" a comfort brand for the overly indebted middle class. Slap the Mouse on it, it must mean "quality". The people aren't buying it.

Originally Posted by Another Voice
But too many people still remember when Disney meant "magic" as more than a marketing slogan. That's what people really want in their lives. All the joint ventures, all the marketing, all the ferns on the Internet aren't going to change that. Millions don't find that at WDW anymore, and the trend is growing.

Originally Posted by Another Voice
It's simple - if Disney was hitting record attendance you'd hear it trumpeted at each and every report, news conference and rope drop announcement the company made. Disney is a business - you know. Those kinds of things not only help the stock price, but they stroke the management's ego to no end. Yes, being up 6.5% from a previous low number is wonderful - but the company has never said it's even fully recovered to 9/11 levels, let alone peak attendance in 2000.

And where are your facts and figures that everything is so happy. Where are your record crowds, where are your higher than ever occupancy rates.

Let's hear some figures from you to back up your statements*.

AV seems very knowledgeable about Disney, but I don't think AV is entirely objective. Every post I read from AV and several others on these boards is all negative. Some things I agree with, however I do not think things are as bad as AV always portray them to be.

MasterShake
04-09-2007, 12:47 PM
Double Post

EUROPACL
04-09-2007, 01:02 PM
AV seems very knowledgeable about Disney, but I don't think AV is entirely objective. Every post I read from AV and several others on these boards is all negative. Some things I agree with, however I do not think things are as bad as AV always portray them to be.



Read AV comments again...then compare them to numbers that nobody claims as being true...No even Disney. There is a reason why Disney never releases attendance fingures...and this post is the exact reason why. He said she said and nobody can point to real numbers. As AV has pointed out you have only to look at what Disney is doing to get a clear picture of attendance.

raidermatt
04-09-2007, 01:25 PM
Good point. We do tend to take these numbers as gospel, but they are only third party estimates, and we have no idea what goes on behind the scenes.

For the sake of discussion, I'm willing to use them because it's all we have, but they very well could be nowhere near the truth.

After all, Pop still sits unfinished, the north garden wings were torn down, AKL is giving rooms up for DVC, and free dining continues to pop up.

It can't be all moonlight and roses.

MasterShake
04-09-2007, 02:03 PM
Good point. We do tend to take these numbers as gospel, but they are only third party estimates, and we have no idea what goes on behind the scenes.

For the sake of discussion, I'm willing to use them because it's all we have, but they very well could be nowhere near the truth.

After all, Pop still sits unfinished, the north garden wings were torn down, AKL is giving rooms up for DVC, and free dining continues to pop up.

It can't be all moonlight and roses.

Ok, but a third party company making educated guesses is probably a better indication of park attendance then a few individuals’ personal opinions. Also, if these numbers are untrustworthy, why was it ok for AV to compare park attendance from 2000 to now?

Pop Century was announced in 1999 and the Hotel opened in 2003. A lot happened with the economy during that period of time that may have played a role in Disney’s decision to leave the resort incomplete.

YoHo
04-09-2007, 02:56 PM
Pop Century never completely opened, because Disney's attendence Tanked...So much that they closed other existing resorts to reduce costs.

Listen, others have said, but I'll say it again, Their Attendence since 2000 is almost flat. It's flat because in 2001 it declined and that's prior to 9/11. They've been struggling more then other destinations.
And as DB pointed out their revenue is down.

So in 2000, Disney had 43 million people go to WDW with a Revenue per guest of X.
In 2006 they also had about 43 million people go to WDW with aRevenue per guest of Y.
Y<X that means Disney is doing worse even if they recovered the raw number of people.

Disney is getting a lot less money from every person that walks through the door despite ticket increases. Because they're giving the food away for free and they're giving the rooms away below rack rate and they're converting everyone to DVC which has it appears lower margins for Disney.

This is not a sign of health.

Peter Pirate 2
04-09-2007, 03:09 PM
For the second time in recent memory I say very good Yoho. That was to the point and accurate.
pirate:

SoCalKDG
04-09-2007, 03:34 PM
DL opens 1-2 hours earlier then DCA, thus this skews the numbers concerning the two parks more dramatically then anything else.

MasterShake
04-09-2007, 03:37 PM
Pop Century never completely opened, because Disney's attendence Tanked...So much that they closed other existing resorts to reduce costs.

Listen, others have said, but I'll say it again, Their Attendence since 2000 is almost flat. It's flat because in 2001 it declined and that's prior to 9/11. They've been struggling more then other destinations.
And as DB pointed out their revenue is down.

So in 2000, Disney had 43 million people go to WDW with a Revenue per guest of X.
In 2006 they also had about 43 million people go to WDW with aRevenue per guest of Y.
Y<X that means Disney is doing worse even if they recovered the raw number of people.

Disney is getting a lot less money from every person that walks through the door despite ticket increases. Because they're giving the food away for free and they're giving the rooms away below rack rate and they're converting everyone to DVC which has it appears lower margins for Disney.

This is not a sign of health.

Pop Century probably was not finished due to attendance, but I do not think it was because of the parks direction. It was probably 9/11 and the economy that caused attendance problems.

Disney is not struggling more then other theme Parks. US/IOA had a million less guests in 2006 then it did in 2001. I would say they are the ones suffering.

While it's possible Disney is making less per customer, I don't see how you can say it as fact. You used X and Y in place of actual figures. If there is actual data on this, then please post it. Without these figures how can you say with any certainty that Disney is making less money?

MasterShake
04-09-2007, 03:40 PM
For the second time in recent memory I say very good Yoho. That was to the point and accurate.
pirate:

Wow, do you have actual figures that help to prove his points or are you just his "yes" man?

cristen
04-09-2007, 04:01 PM
or are you just his "yes" man?


LOL!!


This board is quite funny.

SoCalKDG
04-09-2007, 04:34 PM
So in 2000, Disney had 43 million people go to WDW with a Revenue per guest of X.
In 2006 they also had about 43 million people go to WDW with aRevenue per guest of Y.
Y<X that means Disney is doing worse even if they recovered the raw number of people.

Disney is getting a lot less money from every person that walks through the door despite ticket increases. Because they're giving the food away for free and they're giving the rooms away below rack rate and they're converting everyone to DVC which has it appears lower margins for Disney.
You going to show financial statements showing Y < X or do we just believe the word of Yoho? I'm pretty sure the financials will show the opposite, but since you brought it up I'll let you find the info for guest spending.

DancingBear
04-09-2007, 04:43 PM
Duplicating my post from the Four Seasons thread:

Here's some interesting figures (sources are the 2000 and 2006 10-Ks):

2000 Parks and Resorts Revenue: $6.8 billion
2006 Parks and Resorts Revenue: $9.9 billion

2000 Parks and Resorts Operating Income: $1.62 billion
2006 Parks and Resorts Operating Income: $1.53 billion.

So, MJ is correct that revenues have increased. But it looks like costs have increased at a much greater rate.

SoCalKDG
04-09-2007, 04:58 PM
And as DB pointed out their revenue is down.

So in 2000, Disney had 43 million people go to WDW with a Revenue per guest of X.
In 2006 they also had about 43 million people go to WDW with aRevenue per guest of Y.
Y<X that means Disney is doing worse even if they recovered the raw number of people.

Disney is getting a lot less money from every person that walks through the door despite ticket increases. Because they're giving the food away for free and they're giving the rooms away below rack rate and they're converting everyone to DVC which has it appears lower margins for Disney.

Looks like Dancing Bear is stating the opposite, that revenue is up. They are getting more money per guest.

DancingBear
04-09-2007, 05:03 PM
I don't know how that revenue figure works on a per-guest basis, but I thought having an actual decline in Operating Income during a period that revenues increased nearly 46% is really striking.

(BTW, these are Company-wide Parks and Resorts figures, so they include the big rise at Disneyland for the 50th, and Hong Kong revenue. In fact, the 2006 FY Operating Income figure is a 30% increase over FY 2005).

MasterShake
04-09-2007, 05:14 PM
The above figures seem to show that Disney is making more money and attendance is increasing. I'm sure they have a lot of room for improvement, but I would have to disagree that their current direction is dooming the parks.

DancingBear
04-09-2007, 05:22 PM
More interesting numbers, this time the WDW "per room spending" figure (which they've only provided in detail starting with the '03 10-K):

'03, $202
'04, $198
'05, $199
'06, $211

So '06 looks like it was a somewhat decent year (6.5% increase), but why did per room revenue actually decline in '04 and '05?

DancingBear
04-09-2007, 05:23 PM
The above figures seem to show that Disney is making more money....I guess that depends what you call "making more money."

MasterShake
04-09-2007, 05:40 PM
I guess that depends what you call "making more money."

Yes, this can be a difficult concept to grasp.

YoHo
04-09-2007, 06:13 PM
Do you understand what Operating Income is?

And yes, I misspoke, Revenue rose. Operating Income fell.

Do you understand what:
"missing the forest for the trees means?"

YoHo
04-09-2007, 06:19 PM
DL opens 1-2 hours earlier then DCA, thus this skews the numbers concerning the two parks more dramatically then anything else.


Operating hours are a function of profitability though. If Disney thought they could get more guests into DCA early, then it would be open early.

And if it did make some sort of appreciable difference, don't you think Corporate brass would say that instead of admitting that DCA is a failure to the stockholders?

I mean come on.

MasterShake
04-09-2007, 06:34 PM
Do you understand what Operating Income is?

And yes, I misspoke, Revenue rose. Operating Income fell.

Do you understand what:
"missing the forest for the trees means?"

Do you understand what:
"Rude and bitter means?"

You misspoke (seems like you use that excuse a lot) and then you lash out at others.

Disney is spending more money then they did in 2000, but they are making enough money to offset those costs. I'm sure if operating Income was higher you'd be on here bashing Disney for not spending more on the parks.

Peter Pirate 2
04-09-2007, 06:46 PM
Rude and bitter? Are you a professional clown or just funny by nature. You call me a "yes man" (for agreeing with Yoho, whom I've agreed with twice now in the past 8 years or so) then call him names...Wow.:thumbsup2

The facts are there. It took Disney years longer than other vacation destination to return to pre 9/11 figures and even when they do it it's by offering unheard of giveaways (free dining) and discounts (the hotels). If you don't want to discuss don't but don't have a hissy fit when your logic shows no clear path and is pointed out.
pirate:

YoHo
04-09-2007, 07:10 PM
Disney is not struggling more then other theme Parks. US/IOA had a million less guests in 2006 then it did in 2001. I would say they are the ones suffering.



Nobody said anything about Theme Parks. Walt Disney World is not a Theme Park. It's resort destination. It's competitors are Hawaii, Las Vegas, etc. etc. etc.

Disney's operating realities have absolutely nothing in common with Universal Florida.

YoHo
04-09-2007, 07:12 PM
Rude and bitter? Are you a professional clown or just funny by nature. You call me a "yes man" (for agreeing with Yoho, whom I've agreed with twice now in the past 8 years or so) then call him names...Wow.:thumbsup2

The facts are there. It took Disney years longer than other vacation destination to return to pre 9/11 figures and even when they do it it's by offering unheard of giveaways (free dining) and discounts (the hotels). If you don't want to discuss don't but don't have a hissy fit when your logic shows no clear path and is pointed out.
pirate:

I remember we had a knock down drag out fight about something or other many moons ago. Something to do with Eisner I'm sure. I don't remember.

YoHo
04-09-2007, 07:15 PM
Disney is spending more money then they did in 2000, but they are making enough money to offset those costs. I'm sure if operating Income was higher you'd be on here bashing Disney for not spending more on the parks.

Actually, I'm unhappy with the amount of money they're spending on the Parks, Florida in particular, regardless of what their operating income is. Their park spending has been way off compared to even 10 years ago. And their spending compared to revenues is disgustingly low compared to the 50s, 60s, 70s and even 80s.

Apparently, the Disney decade was code for terrible TV and time shares.

MJMcBride
04-09-2007, 08:20 PM
Nobody said anything about Theme Parks. Walt Disney World is not a Theme Park. It's resort destination. It's competitors are Hawaii, Las Vegas, etc. etc. etc.

Disney's operating realities have absolutely nothing in common with Universal Florida.

I agree. But they are competing with Universal as well. And kicking their butt apparently

YoHo
04-09-2007, 08:55 PM
And they've always kicked Universal's butt, so it's not really a competition is it?

Anyway, Universal has their own set of issues.

raidermatt
04-10-2007, 03:11 AM
I agree. But they are competing with Universal as well. And kicking their butt apparently

Universal is a minor competitor. When the average vacationer sits down and says should we go to WDW, or should we go to "X", "X" is rarely Universal.

But yes, Universal is tanking. They simply aren't investing in their product.

Do you understand what:
"Rude and bitter means?"

For whatever reason, you opened that can this time with the uncalled for "yes man" comment. Besides being rude, if you only knew the history you'd realize how off that statement is.

The above figures seem to show that Disney is making more money and attendance is increasing. I'm sure they have a lot of room for improvement, but I would have to disagree that their current direction is dooming the parks.

You don't make more money if expenses go up more than revenue, and that's actually what the numbers posted by Dancing Bear show. Its also impossible to translate them into attendance because ticket prices have gone up, as have virtually all other prices on-property. Its possible the same number of guests are simply shelling out more money, which could be interpreted as at least a partial positive, if it weren't for expenses going up by a greater amount.

Now, as for whether the current direction is "dooming" the parks, that all depends on what you mean by dooming. You could look at decreased operating income and extrapolate that into the future and it would most certainly end up causing some rather large problems for the company. Expecially when you consider what will happen during the next economic downturn.

Looks like Dancing Bear is stating the opposite, that revenue is up. They are getting more money per guest.As stated above, more money is comng in, but even more is going out. As we are always reminded, Disney is a business, and declining operating income is not a good thing.

DL opens 1-2 hours earlier then DCA, thus this skews the numbers concerning the two parks more dramatically then anything else.

Sure, it's something in DL's favor, but DL only opens earlier because far fewer people want to enter DCA early. If they did, it would open earlier as well. At the same time, the place empties out late in the day, especially when the EP isn't running. Since most guests don't arrive at DL in the first hour, it's a pretty big stretch to say DL gets significant help to its numbers just because it opens earlier. Besides, its a good bet that most guests who do hit DL early and then shoot over to DCA shoot right back over to DL at some point. They must, looking at what happens to DCA late in the day vs. DL.

Since most guests don't arrive until after 10am anyway, DL's earlier opening has little bearing on which park most people enter first.

DancingBear
04-10-2007, 05:51 AM
Yes, this can be a difficult concept to grasp.You posted this, then complain about others being rude?

SoCalKDG
04-10-2007, 08:59 AM
As stated above, more money is comng in, but even more is going out. As we are always reminded, Disney is a business, and declining operating income is not a good thing.

The key question is what is Disney spending the money on. A common complaint is that Disney doesn't put money back into the parks. Higher expenses could contradict that depending on where the money is going. If in 2000 money wasn't going back into the parks(generally accepted theory on the net) then its operating income was greater but at the expense of long term profitibility. Revenue is now up dramatically and money is being spent.



Sure, it's something in DL's favor, but DL only opens earlier because far fewer people want to enter DCA early. If they did, it would open earlier as well. At the same time, the place empties out late in the day, especially when the EP isn't running. Since most guests don't arrive at DL in the first hour, it's a pretty big stretch to say DL gets significan't help to its numbers just because it opens earlier. Besides, its a good bet that most guests who do hit DL early and then shoot over to DCA shoot right back over to DL at some point. They must, looking at what happens to DCA late in the day vs. DL.

Since most guests don't arrive until after 10am anyway, DL's earlier opening has little bearing on which park most people enter first.

First, I'm all for improving any park. DCA and the money being spent to improve it is a great thing happening. My comments were only based on attendance and the first in first counted comments.

I'm going to disagree with your assumption about arrival time based on my personal experience. I've been there many times between 9:30 and 10:30 am and its already starting to get crowded(10,000+ in the park) at DL. Almost every hotel guest starts their day at DL park with either early entry or the earlier opening time. These people then parkhop to DCA later in the day. This number is greater then the number of people that spend their first hour at DCA then jump to DL.

raidermatt
04-10-2007, 11:37 AM
I'm going to disagree with your assumption about arrival time based on my personal experience. I've been there many times between 9:30 and 10:30 am and its already starting to get crowded(10,000+ in the park) at DL. Almost every hotel guest starts their day at DL park with either early entry or the earlier opening time. These people then parkhop to DCA later in the day. This number is greater then the number of people that spend their first hour at DCA then jump to DL.


Just for a little perspective, DL averages over 40k per day, so if your 10k+ by 10:30am estimate is correct for an average day, at least 75% of DL's guests would still be arriving after 10am.

Some do take advantage of early entry and openings, but most don't. That's why those who do enter early find the lines so short at that time. Plus, unlike WDW, the majority of guests aren't even staying at the on-property hotels. There's only 2200 total rooms on property.

All Aboard
04-10-2007, 01:16 PM
YoHo + Peter Pirate 2 = 0 :teeth:

YoHo
04-10-2007, 01:19 PM
Now now AA, you can't alter the past.

All Aboard
04-10-2007, 01:28 PM
Hey, I figured I just beat MasterShake to the punch.

YoHo
04-10-2007, 01:46 PM
This thread would be much better with a Rum Runner, I'll tell you that.

Cannot_Wait_4Disney
04-11-2007, 02:09 AM
Disney's operating realities have absolutely nothing in common with Universal Florida.

Yeah. Disney doesn't operate any themeparks like Universal does. They have absolutely nothing in common with Universal.

It's competitors are Hawaii, Las Vegas, etc. etc. etc.

Yeah. Disney has much more in common with a gambling destination and a tropical island than it does with Universal. I mean what do these people thing WDW is? Do they think WDW is a bunch of theme parks and the hotels and restaurants to service visitors to them or something? Fools.

MasterShake
04-11-2007, 06:43 AM
Actually, I'm unhappy with the amount of money they're spending on the Parks, Florida in particular, regardless of what their operating income is. Their park spending has been way off compared to even 10 years ago. And their spending compared to revenues is disgustingly low compared to the 50s, 60s, 70s and even 80s.

Apparently, the Disney decade was code for terrible TV and time shares.

Sorry, was out of town for a few days.

I find the above statement interesting. I could have sworn that you (on several occasions) called for more money to be spent on various things in WDW. If I have time I'll try and look for some examples later.

MasterShake
04-11-2007, 06:47 AM
You posted this, then complain about others being rude?

LOL, you're right, give the man a cookie.....

MasterShake
04-11-2007, 06:58 AM
Rude and bitter? Are you a professional clown or just funny by nature. You call me a "yes man" (for agreeing with Yoho, whom I've agreed with twice now in the past 8 years or so) then call him names...Wow.:thumbsup2

The facts are there. It took Disney years longer than other vacation destination to return to pre 9/11 figures and even when they do it it's by offering unheard of giveaways (free dining) and discounts (the hotels). If you don't want to discuss don't but don't have a hissy fit when your logic shows no clear path and is pointed out.
pirate:

Sorry, but I called it like I saw it. You brought nothing tangible to the discussion. You were wowed by a statement that had no statistical facts. If X and Y get you so work up, I have X land in Y location to sell you. At least DancingBear had some statistics to share.

Peter Pirate 2
04-11-2007, 07:37 AM
Sorry, but I called it like I saw it. You brought nothing tangible to the discussion. You were wowed by a statement that had no statistical facts. If X and Y get you so work up, I have X land in Y location to sell you. At least Dancing Bear had some statistics to share.
Sorry??? APOLOGY ACCEPTED!:rotfl:

pirate:

cristen
04-11-2007, 11:17 AM
Yeah. Disney has much more in common with a gambling destination and a tropical island than it does with Universal. I mean what do these people thing WDW is? Do they think WDW is a bunch of theme parks and the hotels and restaurants to service visitors to them or something? Fools.

Sarcasm. Cute.


Resort destinations do not have to have anything in common to compete against each other.

When I am trying to plan our yearly BIG vacation, I have to decide if I want to take my family to Hawaii or WDW or Europe, etc...resort destinations. No one ever thinks, hey instead of WDW for 7 days, let's only go to Universal. Instead of going to Hawaii, let's go to Sea World. I'm sure it's more like, since we're here spending 10 days at WDW, lets stop by Universal for 1 or 2 days to check it out.

raidermatt
04-11-2007, 12:02 PM
Exactly. As far as consumer choices go, WDW competes much more directly with Hawaii, Europe and the Caribbean than with Universal, SeaWorld, Six Flags or any other park operator.

Disney primarily sells family vacations, not day trips, so if you are looking for the competition you have to look for destinations that sell the same.

raidermatt
04-11-2007, 12:08 PM
I find the above statement interesting. I could have sworn that you (on several occasions) called for more money to be spent on various things in WDW. If I have time I'll try and look for some examples later.

But isn't that what he said this time? If I read it right, his criticism is that park spending is less (on an adjusted basis I assume) than it was in the past.

Sorry, but I called it like I saw it. You brought nothing tangible to the discussion. You were wowed by a statement that had no statistical facts. If X and Y get you so work up, I have X land in Y location to sell you. At least DancingBear had some statistics to share.

I assume you issue the "yes man" statement to everybody who "dittos" a post that you believe lacks statistical facts?

Or is Mr. Pirate just lucky?

YoHo
04-11-2007, 01:36 PM
See, here's the thing, my misstatment aside, and rest assured, it was nothing more then getting the states jumbled in my head, my post was based entirely on DancingBear's post, because you see, DancingBear MADE THAT POST a couple weeks ago, so the statistics were already on the table. I just misquoted them.

He simply copied and pasted them here for your benefit (and mine). If you read his post and saw that it was facts already in evidence, and accept my adlpated post as being an honest error, then welll.......

I guess the point is that in a forum where we've been talking about this stuff ad nauseum for 8 years, you probably shouldn't assume these kinds of things as unsupported. My oft cited ability to muddle things not withstanding.

SoCalKDG
04-12-2007, 09:03 AM
But isn't that what he said this time? If I read it right, his criticism is that park spending is less (on an adjusted basis I assume) than it was in the past.


Then criticism of this most recent year should be non-existant as spending was higher than at any time over the last 10 years, correct? Wasn't spending at a record high this last year? Am I misreading the financials?

YoHo
04-12-2007, 10:59 AM
Raw or adjusted?

And spending over the last 10 years really doesn't mean that much to me since they really haven't done anything on a major scale since AK and Indy.

How about Spending, adjusted for the last 20 years? or the last 30 years?

Let's plot that versus revenues and profits of the entire company.

MasterShake
04-12-2007, 05:04 PM
Raw or adjusted?

And spending over the last 10 years really doesn't mean that much to me since they really haven't done anything on a major scale since AK and Indy.

How about Spending, adjusted for the last 20 years? or the last 30 years?

Let's plot that versus revenues and profits of the entire company.

EE was just completed last year and that cost $100,000,000, if I remember correctly. Maybe they had gone a while without doing anything big, but it seems like they are putting more money in now.

YoHo
04-12-2007, 07:39 PM
really, what's on the plate next that's on par with EE?

MasterShake
04-13-2007, 12:31 PM
really, what's on the plate next that's on par with EE?

Well, they can't all be $100,000,000 attractions. I know they just completed that Laugh Floor, Nemo Seas, and Nemo Show. They are refurbishing several rides that needed work. Also, I think they have started working on that Toy Story Ride.

You say they haven’t done much in the last 20 years and then you gloss over the fact that they built an entire new park in 1998 (Animal Kingdom). Some other major attractions in the last 13 years include:

• Tower of Terror – 1994
• Blizzard Beach - 1998
• Test Track - 1998
• Rock 'n' Roller Coaster - 1999.
• Mission Space – 2003
• Expedition Everest – 2006

This doesn’t include refurbishments, themed resorts, shows, improved pavilions, and smaller rides. If this trend continues I would guess that the next major multi-million dollar attraction will be built somewhere in 2009-2010.

YoHo
04-13-2007, 02:24 PM
I didn't say they hadn't done much in the last 20 years, you misread me. you were comparing 2006 to the past 10 years. I said the past 10 years have been questionable and to compare it to the past 20.

The last truely great attraction Disney has done was Indiana Jones and the Temple of the Forbidden eye.

MasterShake
04-13-2007, 03:11 PM
I didn't say they hadn't done much in the last 20 years, you misread me. you were comparing 2006 to the past 10 years. I said the past 10 years have been questionable and to compare it to the past 20.

The last truely great attraction Disney has done was Indiana Jones and the Temple of the Forbidden eye.

The only ride I mentioned beyond 10 years was ToT, so the rest fall within the previous decade.

Indy is not the only great attraction Disney has done in the last ten years. I would say that Dinosaur and EE are on par with Indy.

raidermatt
04-13-2007, 03:43 PM
Indy is not the only great attraction Disney has done in the last ten years. I would say that Dinosaur and EE are on par with Indy.

This is one of those cases where one needs to cast aside personal preferences and look at the overall guest reaction.

With Dinosaur, it's no contest.

You could make a case for EE, but its also difficult to make a solid judgement with the attraction only being about a year old.

YoHo
04-13-2007, 05:37 PM
Normally I don't like to get into arguing personal preference, but if you think Dinosaur in particular is even close to as good as Indy, then you're nuts. not even CTX was as good as Indy. That's just crazy talk out and out crazy talk.

I've never done EE, so I can't say, but given that Indy is a dark ride and EE is a coaster, odds are that Indy is better. It's certainly more impressive based on videos of EE.

MasterShake
04-13-2007, 05:42 PM
Normally I don't like to get into arguing personal preference, but if you think Dinosaur in particular is even close to as good as Indy, then you're nuts. not even CTX was as good as Indy. That's just crazy talk out and out crazy talk.

I've never done EE, so I can't say, but given that Indy is a dark ride and EE is a coaster, odds are that Indy is better. It's certainly more impressive based on videos of EE.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't it almost the exact same track and ride vehicles. The only real difference being that one is themed Indy and the other is themed Dinosaurs.

raidermatt
04-13-2007, 06:51 PM
Yes, it's the exact same ride mech.

The biggest obvious difference is the scope of the sets. Indy has some pretty expansive stuff compared to Dinosaur's much smaller and darker sets.

Indy's queue also does a much better job of setting the story as you progress through it.

While certainly which one people like best is a personal preference, its pretty clear more effort was put into Indy, and it's a much more popular attraction, even though it's older.

CanadianGuy
04-13-2007, 06:53 PM
Master:

You're right.. it's the same mechanism.. but having ridden both extensively.. Indy was a good use of that setup.. Dinosaur .. hmm.. to quote Borat.. "Not so much.."

Dinosaur is "ok" -- Indy is just way beyond OK. The environment, the queue, the layout, the 'vibe' .. it really works on a massive level.

I felt let down after Dinosaur by comparison.

Knox

Wick
04-16-2007, 07:58 AM
EE was just completed last year and that cost $100,000,000, if I remember correctly. Maybe they had gone a while without doing anything big, but it seems like they are putting more money in now.

From what I've read, Disney actually underspent what they had originally budgeted for EE to make the ride less extreme... Rumor has it that EE was supposed to be up there with the likes of Dueling Dragons or Hulk Coaster, but it was scrapped to appease younger riders yet simultaneously satisfy coaster enthusiasts.

All Aboard
04-16-2007, 05:39 PM
The only real difference being that one is themed Indy and the other is themed Dinosaurs.I have to ask, have you actually ridden both attractions?

Go, stop, "not our dino", go, stop, "not our dino", go, stop...

MasterShake
04-17-2007, 01:39 PM
I have to ask, have you actually ridden both attractions?

Go, stop, "not our dino", go, stop, "not our dino", go, stop...

Yes, and I do like the Indy ride better. My point was that the ride is very similar and that if you include Indy as a major ride, then you would also have to include Dinosaur. The ride vehicles are the same, the track is the same, and they were both built with some excellent special effects. Indy is not so dark and has more detail, but the rides are very similar.

All Aboard
04-17-2007, 02:20 PM
Well, then we clearly have differing opinions on the two attractions. I'd give Indy a 10 on a scale of 10, and Dinosaur perhaps a 6. But, given that I've seen what can be done with the technology - it drops down to a 5.

Saying that the only difference is theming is like saying that The Little Mermaid and Return to the Sea have the same characters and are essentially the same movie, the only diffence being Ariel has a kid.

MasterShake
04-17-2007, 03:52 PM
Well, then we clearly have differing opinions on the two attractions. I'd give Indy a 10 on a scale of 10, and Dinosaur perhaps a 6. But, given that I've seen what can be done with the technology - it drops down to a 5.

Saying that the only difference is theming is like saying that The Little Mermaid and Return to the Sea have the same characters and are essentially the same movie, the only diffence being Ariel has a kid.

No, that analogy is not quite fair. A better comparison would be if Disney created a made for theaters sequel of The Little Mermaid and used the same; writer, director, animators, money and voice talent. However the plot was a little weaker and it was less popular with the public.

Again, I can understand that people like Indy better, however they do have a lot of similarities.

I get what you’re saying, but Dinosaur is still a major ride that was built within the last 10 years at WDW.

raidermatt
04-17-2007, 04:35 PM
The point of contention wasn't about major rides, it was about great attractions. Mission:Space, for example, is major, but hardly great.

Dino was a lesser effort not only in terms of the story, but also in terms of the sets in both the queue and the actual ride.

MasterShake
04-17-2007, 04:57 PM
The point of contention wasn't about major rides, it was about great attractions. Mission:Space, for example, is major, but hardly great.

Dino was a lesser effort not only in terms of the story, but also in terms of the sets in both the queue and the actual ride.

I do think it's a great ride and so did the wife. I thought the animatronics were excellent and I enjoyed the queue area. Again, Indy is better, but Dinosaur was still very good.