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

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.

Yes you're right, I just found the Orlando Sentinel article for the percentages. I'd be interested to see more data on the revenue per guest end. I assume Disney owns that because of the number of parks/restaurants but would be interesting to see where UO ended up.
 
It's hard to move up when you're already at the top. Doesn't a hill get harder to climb the higher that you get?

Disney hasn't climbed for a while now. They put on the brakes because Florida competition was non-existent and now that Harry Potter is taking form they are slipping. Sure, they can slap up a Star Wars land and put on the brakes for another 5-10 years but sometimes a company could be too big where it hurts the end users. It's not a shock that you see more posts popping up where people who used to go every year are going every 5 years now.
 
Yes you're right, I just found the Orlando Sentinel article for the percentages. I'd be interested to see more data on the revenue per guest end. I assume Disney owns that because of the number of parks/restaurants but would be interesting to see where UO ended up.

It's in the 10K
 
USO's market share is growing, but not tremendously, and it is not having much impact at all on WDW. Combine Disney's 4 gates vs. USO's two and you find:

Market share 2012:
Disney = 71.3%
Universal=20.8%

Market share 2013:
Disney = 71.2%
Universal= 21.6%

A rising tide lifts all boats (except for the S.S.Seaworld, it appears), and the tide of tourist dollars is definitely going up.

You can't compare attendance numbers. You have to look at profitability. Disney has a footprint that is more than 40 times the size of Universal. How many of the people in each park are Unique visitors? More importantly how much revenue was gained by ticket sales for Disney vs. Universal? How much revenue for merchandise and food?

if you break the visitors for Disney and Universal down to people per sq mile, Disney gets 1.4 million per square mile and Universal gets 11.6 million per square mile. On a cost basis I am sure Disney is not happy with those numbers.

The average family visits Disney parks for 7 days? (a guess) the average family attends Universal for 2? (another guess) That means that Universal gets more $$ per day per visitor than Disney. Another number that I am sure they do not like. In other words a Universal visitor on average would be $150 for 2 days or $75 per day versus Disney getting $60 per day.

Disney pays a FORTUNE in transportation costs, Universal has 2 boats that they run at 1 time. This most likely gives Disney a higher cost per visitor to operate cutting into profits.

Where Disney wins hands down is merchandise. That is what truly keeps them afloat. Overpriced schmaltz that they sell.

Statistics and numbers can be used in many deceptive ways. the bottom line is you go where your family will most enjoy. Both are obviously successful, so why debate who is better? Everyone benefits from good competition. Personally, I think Universal is winning the battle of spending money to improve the parks where it really counts...
 

Yes you're right, I just found the Orlando Sentinel article for the percentages. I'd be interested to see more data on the revenue per guest end. I assume Disney owns that because of the number of parks/restaurants but would be interesting to see where UO ended up.

it isn't even revenue that counts. Revenue - Cost = profit. Pure profit or percent profit vs. cost is what really matters.
 
The fact that US Orlando grew 14% by opening Despicable Me and Transformers then think what is about to happen once Diagon Alley opens up!! :scared1:

And if you add up all 4 Disney parks and compare it to the two Universal parks then UO wins 16% to 11.5%. MARKETSHARE folks....marketshare.

Sorry, you can't add percentages like that. It is not mathematically sound.

If 2 parks have attendance of 10 million and 1 grows by 2% and the other grows by 6% that means that 1 park is at 10.2 million and the other is at 10.6 million. therefore they grew by .8 million from 20 million or 4% growth not 8%.

I am too lazy right now to find the true combined growth for each...maybe later...
 
If I opened up a shop and another person opens the same type of business a few miles away and both of us see and increase in attendance and sales I am still pleased. However if I only saw a 6% and the other one saw a %14 increase I would be looking to see how I could boost my attendance by looking at what he is doing right.

In this case, you own a shop and another person opened a shop of the same business but serves more of a niche market for some of your products (you actually started getting those products in stock when you heard they were setting up shop in your town). They don't really compete hard for your main product that drives your business, so you've been offering the niche product at a discount with the main product to discourage your customers from going to them for their product. The market has grown but their share for that niche product is growing at a faster rate than yours, even though you are offering the discount. Your sales numbers look better than theirs but essentially every customer who buys your version of the niche product is doing it at the discount.
 
USO's market share has been increasing and will continue to do so but is way, way below WDW's and will continue to do so for a long time.

IF USO could maintain around a 9% growth for about 15 years and WDW continued a 3% growth every year I think WDW would still have a larger market share. Someone who is better at math than me can check that if they want.....

You're talking about the Magic Kingdom. The other 3 parks aren't outdrawing Universal by much, and Diagon Alley hasn't opened yet. One thing is certain - Universal has no plans of stopping. Disney hasn't done squat at Epcot or Hollywood Studios in years. If they don't get on the ball, Universal will pass both parks. Animal Kingdom is yet to be seen with Avatarland.
 
Sorry, you can't add percentages like that. It is not mathematically sound.

If 2 parks have attendance of 10 million and 1 grows by 2% and the other grows by 6% that means that 1 park is at 10.2 million and the other is at 10.6 million. therefore they grew by .8 million from 20 million or 4% growth not 8%.

I am too lazy right now to find the true combined growth for each...maybe later...

Yes, that has been made abundantly clear that I made a mistake in this thread. I've since enrolled in remedial math classes.:thumbsup2
 
it isn't even revenue that counts. Revenue - Cost = profit. Pure profit or percent profit vs. cost is what really matters.

In it's simplistic form, yes. I'm talking about an average customer spend though which goes to top line revenue.
 
In it's simplistic form, yes. I'm talking about an average customer spend though which goes to top line revenue.

If I spend $100 in Disney and it costs them $90 for me to be there and then I spend $50 in Universal and it costs them $30 to be there then Disney needs double the attendance to make up for it.

I realize I made these numbers up but the point still stands, Spending per person is irrelevant without taking cost into consideration.
 
Yes, that has been made abundantly clear that I made a mistake in this thread. I've since enrolled in remedial math classes.:thumbsup2

Sorry, I see I skipped a page or 2 of posts. I didn't mean to berate a point that was already discussed...

As a math teacher I couldn't let it go uncorrected :thumbsup2
 
If I spend $100 in Disney and it costs them $90 for me to be there and then I spend $50 in Universal and it costs them $30 to be there then Disney needs double the attendance to make up for it.

I realize I made these numbers up but the point still stands, Spending per person is irrelevant without taking cost into consideration.

I'm not getting your posts. Are you discrediting revenue as something a company looks at? That's the starting point for alot of different calculations, not just profit.
 
Looking at one year is interesting, looking at several years is really interesting. Looking at the Theme Park attendance data I've been able to gather we get the following chart.



Unfortunately, I'm missing data for all of the parks. I'm missing individual park data for Disney from the 80's, the early years of USO in the early 90, and most of the data from Sea World.

From 1996-2002, MK, EPCOT, DHS, and USO saw declining attendance. DAK saw an initial spike in attendance in 1998 but the joined the downward trend. IOA saw a similar initial spike but was able to keep most of it's attendance during the period.

From 2003 - 2009 Something interesting happened, Disney started turning their attendance figures around while Universal continued to decline and IOA started declining and fast. So, the question becomes what happened during this time frame to cause the Disney's boat to start lifting while Universal's boat still sank. I've narrowed it down in my mind to 3 things.

First, aggressive discounting Discounting. The time frame saw the creation of Free Dining. In 2003 they offered book 4 nights get 3 nights free including tickets.

Second, Add to that, the creation of MYW ticketing in 2005. In 2004, extending a WDW ticket from 5 days to 7 days cost almost an extra $100. In 2005, under MYW going from 5 to 7 days cost $6. It was the original "lock it in". In 2004, $100 would almost get you 2 days at Universal. So your choice for that $100 was 2 days at Disney + water parks (going from 5-7 days required adding water parks at that time) or 2 days Universal.

Third First, Disneyland's 50th anniversary. In honor of Disneyland 50th, WDW got 3 attraction in short order. Soarin' at EPCOT, and Lights Motors Action at DHS in 2005 and Expidition Everest in DAK in 2006.

At Universal, there wasn't much happening. Ticket prices adjusted to try and compete with Disney. They started offering 7 day tickets for $85-$99. At IOA the only attraction they opened was the Sky High Seuss trolly train ride in 2006 that was supposed to be an opening day attraction. USF opened the Mummy, Shrek 4D, and Jimmy Neutron but all 3 were replacements for existing rides.

From 2010-12. Except for MK this year, WDW has been coasting along. The gains from the earlier period have held and growth has been 1-3% per year. At Universal the big thing that happened was Harry Potter. In 2009 WWOHP opened at IOA and in 2 years time it went from a dying park to one with record attendance. USF has stopped declining in attendance and is growing similar to WDW.

Putting 2013 in context to what came before. At Disney, MK saw significant growth primarily I assume to a full year stage 1 of New Fantasy Land. Epcot, DHS and DAK are still growing at about 2%. At Universal, USF saw significant gains in attendance with the addition of Transformers, Dispicable Me, and improved theming around the Simpson's ride. And this is despite the fact that WWOHP Diagon Alley is slated to open this year. IOA growth was inline with EPCOT, DHS, and DAK. The massive gains from 2010-2012 are holding.

Not to leave Seaworld out of the picture. They've been fairly steady. Up some one year, down some the next but the general trend was up from 1999-2009. 2010 saw a significant decline in attendance, probably attributable to WWOHP opening. Since then it's been fairly steady at that lower level.

The big question is what's going to happen in 2014-16?
 
Looking at the data here is what I see.
President of WDW is happy (got a bonus). NFL got the boost desired. Still has Concerns. EPCOT, AK and HS are doing OK but are a little stagnant. We can debate Avatarland being the right fit but at the end of the day does address AK concerns. Still have EPCOT and DHS issues to discuss. Individuals in charge of those 3 parks are safe for now but but will be expected to look forward a little more.
President of Universal Parks in FL is happy (got a bonus). Are getting the desired results from expansions and should get future boost in Park that only held its own this year.
President of all Disney Parks is very happy (big bonus). Is promising the firstborn to the individual that made the decision to expand in Asia. All Disney parks in Asia have extraordinary numbers.
Iger will get to retire on his own terms. Expansion in Asia, North America Parks holding their own, other moves during his tenure for Disney as a whole keeps his planned retirement date safe. Will have leverage at that time for a Board position or asks to stay a little longer.
This is not a like or Dislike any of these executives, this is the conclusion the board and stockholders (the individuals they answer to) will reach at the Annual stockholder meeting.
 
One thing that makes me an oddball here is, though I would be OK if DHS went with a Starwars Land I think I would prefer something more Pixar based. I know Star Wars has a very adoring base but to me the problem at DHS is the reason TSMM is the toughest FP or wait time ride at Disney. What is there for the entire family at the park? Star Wars could meet this need but to me the options around Pixar are endless. Cars, Monster's, Incredibles, etc. Any could be based more on the entire family taking pressure off of TSMM and giving them a very much needed extra attraction or two to up individuals going through the gate. LAst time we went it was the one park that DW said she would be OK not going back to. Nothing bad about it just not really much to do.
 
I'm not getting your posts. Are you discrediting revenue as something a company looks at? That's the starting point for alot of different calculations, not just profit.

Of course they look at revenue, but not without combining it with operating costs. I could have a trillion dollars in revenue and 2 trillion dollars in operating costs...not good. I can have 100 dollars in revenue and 20 dollars in operating costs...much better.

So, if we are having a discussion about who is the leader, whether it is based on attendance or revenue, you can't do it without taking operating costs into account. That is my only point.
 
One thing that makes me an oddball here is, though I would be OK if DHS went with a Starwars Land I think I would prefer something more Pixar based. I know Star Wars has a very adoring base but to me the problem at DHS is the reason TSMM is the toughest FP or wait time ride at Disney. What is there for the entire family at the park? Star Wars could meet this need but to me the options around Pixar are endless. Cars, Monster's, Incredibles, etc. Any could be based more on the entire family taking pressure off of TSMM and giving them a very much needed extra attraction or two to up individuals going through the gate. LAst time we went it was the one park that DW said she would be OK not going back to. Nothing bad about it just not really much to do.

Perfect.

I wonder how many Disney executives are also theme park fans? TSMM is the newest most technologically advanced ride at DHS but that isn't what drives it popularity. It is something the whole family of every age can do which is something only a fan would realize and not a bean counter.

I would love something similar in WS at Epcot. Except for restaurants and Kim Possible/Phineas and Ferb not one thing has been added since opening. How about a nice family ride over the great cities of the world, similar to the scene of London in Peter Pan? It wouldn't have to wow with great or expensive technology.
 
One thing that makes me an oddball here is, though I would be OK if DHS went with a Starwars Land I think I would prefer something more Pixar based. I know Star Wars has a very adoring base but to me the problem at DHS is the reason TSMM is the toughest FP or wait time ride at Disney. What is there for the entire family at the park? Star Wars could meet this need but to me the options around Pixar are endless. Cars, Monster's, Incredibles, etc. Any could be based more on the entire family taking pressure off of TSMM and giving them a very much needed extra attraction or two to up individuals going through the gate. LAst time we went it was the one park that DW said she would be OK not going back to. Nothing bad about it just not really much to do.

I'm excited about the PIXAR themes to check out when we go to DLR for the first time next year. Not only do they have TSMM (and the wait isn't nearly as long), but they have Nemo's Submarines, Luigi's Flying Tires, Monsters Inc ride, of course gotta mention Radiator Springs Racers (similar to Test Trak but Cars themed, from what I hear), and a Carsland. Interestingly, it looks like their Innoventions might have Ironman and Marvel tie-ins, which are missed in FL for obvious reasons.

Of course, I'm greedy, and I want Star Wars, Avatar, AND Pixar Lands. Basically I like it all. But I agree that if they offered more Pixar expanded areas at WDW, it might help alleviate the disgusting waits of TSMM, which aren't nearly as bad in DLR...

I used to think, why go out to DLR? After FP+ limits for 3 FPs and going to WDW 3 times in 2 yrs, I've had enough. Now, I'm seeing lots of possibilities at DL including lots of Pixar, which is great for us (and less magicy too.)

They are definitely family pleasers for entertainment! Disney definitely has lots of opportunity for expansions since their themes are so vast now.
 
If I spend $100 in Disney and it costs them $90 for me to be there and then I spend $50 in Universal and it costs them $30 to be there then Disney needs double the attendance to make up for it.

I realize I made these numbers up but the point still stands, Spending per person is irrelevant without taking cost into consideration.

Its harder in the services industry to make more money per dollar when you are bigger though.

To give you an idea:
Disney has 100 people spend $100 per day making $10 per person = $1000 profit
Universal has 20 people spend $50 per day making $25 per person = $500

Now while Universal could grow 2x next year and Disney could stay stagnate next year the cost of Universal adding another 20 people would drive costs up so you might see something like:

Disney still has the same $1000 profit
Universal now has 40 people spend $51.50 (slight price increase to offset some of the extra cost) per day making $15 per person = $600

Its not as simple as add more people make more money unless you don't care about continuing to grow. Also if Disney wanted worry about Universal that much they could just cut back park hours and close at like 6/7/8/9PM just like Universal instead of staying open to 12/1/2/3am....
 














Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!

Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE







New Posts







DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top