Disney is still the KING!!! Attendance at MK up by 6%!!!!!

[JimmyV]

OK - I have more assumptions based on assumptions....

I get what you are saying on unique visitors but "vacation days per unique visitor' might make a better comparison. I am going to assume the average stay at WDW is longer than an average stay at UO (both on-site and off-site)

......not sure if those numbers are available somewhere but I'm going to guess it's somewhere in the range of 4.5 days (WDW) to 2.5 days (UO).

Yes, we can all drive ourselves crazy with these statistics. Another problem to consider is the diminishing price of admission the longer one stays at WDW. So even if we use "vacation days per unique visitor", we get odd results. For example, a person who is in Central Florida for 7 days might go to WDW for 5 and US for 2. Using a simplistic market share calculation, WDW is getting 71.4% of that guest's market share. But in terms of actual dollars spent, (which is all that the companies care about), the numbers might not match. Admission costs+food+lodging+other expenses might come out more like 60%/40% in WDW's favor. Or 90%/10%. There is no way to know.

 

[TwinPrincessMermaids]

I have to agree with this. I worked in both theme parks/resorts. In my experience people made the trip to Orlando for Disney. In fact, you would be surprised how many visitors don't even know Universal isn't owned by Disney! I got asked daily, no joke, "So where is Mickey and the castle?" when I worked at Universal. I never got the opposite question at Disney... People are still coming to Orlando mainly to the Mouse and I don't see that changing any time soon.

Great post!

 

[Albytaps]

One thing is for sure... if we don't all slow down and stop going so often, it may not be that far off that we'll be paying $1000 for a 1 day ticket. As an old man, I would like to still be able to afford to visit

 

[NYDisGuy]

I'm just not sure that equates to LOSING money. The market share has shifted 5% but the overall market has also increased.

Both properties attendance has risen each year and Disney's profits have continued to rise each year as well.

They still lost money by losing 4% of the share they used to have. Even if the market grew by 100B to 200B, that's 8 billion dollars of lost revenue even though they controlled 70% of the market and reaped the benefits of a growing economy. Looking at the short term destroys alot of companies so while it may not be an issue now, it could be one in the future. And we know Disney is greedy (hence the thread about stuff we miss) so this is definitely on their radar, which it should be. Competitive analysis is vital in the theme park industry.

 

[Liljo22]

They still lost money by losing 4% of the share they used to have. Even if the market grew by 100B to 200B, that's 8 billion dollars of lost revenue even though they controlled 70% of the market and reaped the benefits of a growing economy. Looking at the short term destroys alot of companies so while it may not be an issue now, it could be one in the future. And we know Disney is greedy (hence the thread about stuff we miss) so this is definitely on their radar, which it should be. Competitive analysis is vital in the theme park industry.

Just looking at the market share will not tell the whole story that you are trying to display. This is not like the battle between Apple and Samsung for market share. Not many people carry multiple cell phones so when Apple loses market share and Samsung gains it, that is direct money that is coming out of Apple.

For the battle between WDW and UO, you need to know a lot more information to get a clearer picture. How did UO gain share?

-Are families adding more days to their trip than they normally spend to go to UO or are they cutting from 7 to 5 at WDW and spending 2 at UO.
-Are Florida Residents spending more days at UO and if there are, how many days are they going to WDW vs the past?
-Seaworld went backwards so how much of WDW vactioners that also did Seaworld now replaced it with UO?

Disney did lose revenue to UO but you can not look at these numbers and say how much.

 

[NYDisGuy]

Just looking at the market share will not tell the whole story that you are trying to display. This is not like the battle between Apple and Samsung for market share. Not many people carry multiple cell phones so when Apple loses market share and Samsung gains it, that is direct money that is coming out of Apple.

For the battle between WDW and UO, you need to know a lot more information to get a clearer picture. How did UO gain share?

-Are families adding more days to their trip than they normally spend to go to UO or are they cutting from 7 to 5 at WDW and spending 2 at UO.
-Are Florida Residents spending more days at UO and if there are, how many days are they going to WDW vs the past?
-Seaworld went backwards so how much of WDW vactioners that also did Seaworld now replaced it with UO?

Disney did lose revenue to UO but you can not look at these numbers and say how much.

I was referring to the statement that Disney didn't lose money. Disney did lose money by losing share. I agree though, we don't know who or how much they lost it to although UO's gain paints a big picture. That's something that their product managers and supply chain people would have a better grasp of.

 

[JimmyV]

I was referring to the statement that Disney didn't lose money. Disney did lose money by losing share.

But this misses the bigger point. Take, for example, a family that has gone to Central Florida every year for the past 20 years, and each and every year they went for 6 days and spent 5 at WDW and 1 at Sea World. Now, they go to Central Florida for 7 days and spend 5 days at WDW and 2 days at US. In the past, Disney got 83.33% of their "market share" (5 out of 6 days). Now, Disney gets 71.4% of their market share (5 out of 7 days). But did the 12% drop in market share equate to a loss in revenue? They are still spending the same 5 days there as they always have. No more, but no less. Perhaps you could call this a loss in opportunity since Disney didn't capture any of those added-on days. But it is difficult to call this a loss in revenue. As the pp noted, we need way more information than these statistics give us before we start charging Disney with losing money. The only "for sure" loser in this example is SW.

 

[ArwenMarie]

The main reason they built My Magic, according to Disney themselves, is to "lock people in" before they get to Orlando and are bombarded with the marketing from "other Orlando attractions." Maybe they were talking about Gatorland but something tells me they were probably talking about UOR too. They will always be #1 in Orlando. But what Disney doesn't want is tourists splitting their week up between WDW and UOR. Especially hotel nights.

 

[disneymac000]

The money doesn't come from attendance so why you are rejoicing oh look at the number of people. The money comes from food and merchandise which Disney and UOR makes even more money. So if for every one visitor at Disney, disney gets $10 for food and merchandise while Universal gets $70. It pretty much cancels out a lot of visitors and brings Disney and Universal even. Keep that in mind also before premature rejoicing and bragging when it comes to this Disney Vs Universal fight.

 

[Bruce in PA]

And you have to remember that the stats and information Disney and USO really look at have as much to do with $$$ as they do with bodies going through turnstiles (or past green Mickey heads, as the case may be).

How much does the average guest spend per visit? Per day? Per hour in the park?

Does the revenue per guest increase, decrease, or stay the same when parks are open longer hours? Who spends more - guests that come for Star Wars Weekend, or those who attend the Food & Wine Festival?

And so on. You can bet that the research into spending done by both companies is sophisticated, detailed and closely guarded. And while the gate numbers and market share are certainly important, knowing where the money comes from is what will drive their strategy.

 

[NYDisGuy]

But this misses the bigger point. Take, for example, a family that has gone to Central Florida every year for the past 20 years, and each and every year they went for 6 days and spent 5 at WDW and 1 at Sea World. Now, they go to Central Florida for 7 days and spend 5 days at WDW and 2 days at US. In the past, Disney got 83.33% of their "market share" (5 out of 6 days). Now, Disney gets 71.4% of their market share (5 out of 7 days). But did the 12% drop in market share equate to a loss in revenue? They are still spending the same 5 days there as they always have. No more, but no less. Perhaps you could call this a loss in opportunity since Disney didn't capture any of those added-on days. But it is difficult to call this a loss in revenue. As the pp noted, we need way more information than these statistics give us before we start charging Disney with losing money. The only "for sure" loser in this example is SW.

Market share is the industry's total sales. Looking at a specific family is way too granular. While sales went up and Disney still controlled the majority of it, they still lost 4% of share which ultimately was a lost in potential revenue. This is a major Wall Street indicator and why Disney spends billions on MDE, EMH and other hotel incentives that keeps people in their park.

 

[disneycrazi]

I have maybe what could be a dumb question with regard to this thread and Disney vs Universal in general. Any help would be great. I get attendance and new attractions and market share and all of that but isn't total $s what the two companies would look at? If that is true, wouldn't the bigger money maker be Disney with the choice of resorts and eateries in addition to the actual park tickets???? Just a question

 

[disneymac000]

I have maybe what could be a dumb question with regard to this thread and Disney vs Universal in general. Any help would be great. I get attendance and new attractions and market share and all of that but isn't total $s what the two companies would look at? If that is true, wouldn't the bigger money maker be Disney with the choice of resorts and eateries in addition to the actual park tickets???? Just a question

Resort and hotel wise Yes Disey wins but food and park wise for food and merchandise, I think Magic Kingdom, Epcot, IOA, and USO are close. Islands of Adventure has butter beer, which Disney even tried to copy with Lefrou Brew and its a huge huge money maker along with all the harry potter memoribilla plus Mythos which is crazy popular and USO the Simspons food court has a lot of unique stuff that people buy like crazy. Magic Kingdom based on the number of visitors along would come close to the same amount and Epcot is full of restuarants so I would figure it will break even for what it loses in merchandise.

 

[Bruce in PA]

Market share is the industry's total sales.

No, market share is attendence-based. If Disney can squeeze $150 per head from each guest, but USO only gets $100 each, then each Disney guest is worth 1.5 Universal guests. You can bet each company is looking at those numbers, granular or not.

The only reason that analysts latch onto the attendence and market share data is because that's largely what they have to go on. They can make educated guesses on how each company is doing based on this, but market share really doesn't tell you all that much.

 

[Mad Hattered]

Hat Makers probably don't get a lot of math. It may be an initial lesson rather than remediation.

Damn! I need to quit drinking during the day. But in all honesty, I work with $15-$20 million dollars a year. I guess it's a good thing I don't screw up ALL the time.

 

[Sevey13]

My conspiracy senses are guessing that Disney will be making a big, big announcement around the time DA opens. In my gut, I'm thinking they want to undercut the announcement of DA and the buzz for Universal by saying that, oh, Star Wars Land will be coming soon? Or, dare I hope, Star Wars Park?

 

[clsteve]

No, market share is attendence-based. If Disney can squeeze $150 per head from each guest, but USO only gets $100 each, then each Disney guest is worth 1.5 Universal guests. You can bet each company is looking at those numbers, granular or not.

The only reason that analysts latch onto the attendence and market share data is because that's largely what they have to go on. They can make educated guesses on how each company is doing based on this, but market share really doesn't tell you all that much.

Analysts really only care about attendance growth as a percentage when also looking at revenue plus profitability as a percentage. In the case of Disney, since they're as much a hotel/resort company as a theme park company, they are as interested in the occupancy percentage changes as they compare to attendance percentage changes.

Large increases in attendance without the expected increases in rev-to-profit and occupancy would be concerning and it is a way they (and their Boards) compare the 2 companies.

Put it this way, they'd much rather have flat attendance with strong growth in rev, profit and occupancy than vice versa.

 

[Luckybee]

I enjoyed reading that report! It included water parks, global museums etc.

Poor SeaWorld! They had a tough year for 2013. We did visit this year and it happened to be all the school and senior classes and Manta (top 5 EVER maybe top 3 rides I've ever ridden, and I grew up at Cedar Point!) had 75 min lines most of the day. We had a great day, but it was hot and busy (I guess good for them that day), but SeaWorld has always delivered a great experience.

I saw real shark eggs with baby sharks inside SWIMMING in the eggs! Never seen anything like it. Next aquarium to it had the shark pups. I was able to get REALLY close and see them.

I LOOVVVE Disney, but SW has always delivered an incredible park experience and has been affordable. I hope they can have a better 2014.

Glad to know that DLR is number 2! That's next on my list and I have never been!

Based on what I've read I suspect some of the decline at SW might be explained by "Blackfish ". When I was a child I went to SW with my folks in Cali. I have to be honest, I was mesmerized . Subsequently, we've been to the one in Fla and often to Marineland here at home. Originally we were planning SW for our trip in Sept/Oct. After watching BF I doubt we'll ever go back. And yes, Im aware that there are those who don't accept it as accurate but for us it is a personal decision so lets not start a war here about this. I suspect we may not be the only ones based on that data.

 

[mesaboy2]

Based on what I've read I suspect some of the decline at SW might be explained by "Blackfish ". When I was a child I went to SW with my folks in Cali. I have to be honest, I was mesmerized . Subsequently, we've been to the one in Fla and often to Marineland here at home. Originally we were planning SW for our trip in Sept/Oct. After watching BF I doubt we'll ever go back. And yes, Im aware that there are those who don't accept it as accurate but for us it is a personal decision so lets not start a war here about this. I suspect we may not be the only ones based on that data.

Blackfish is killing SW's business, no doubt. As far as BF's accuracy goes, I'll just and otherwise maintain my silence.

 

[CarouselOfProgress4]

For some reason I feel like a just saw an article saying SW sales were up. On twitter or somewhere. Hmmm must be SW paid propaganda