I am beginning to lose hope...

[Brian Noble]

First of all, Disney does not publicize their attendance.

Of course they do, in every quarterly report. They do tend to group the two domestic destinations together, but even then they will use different language if one under-performs the other by a noticeable margin.

 

[Brian Noble]

That's actually not necessarily true. It could very well be that MDE is negatively affecting attendance, even though attendance is up. Without MDE, it could very well be that attendance would be *even higher.*

Easy to measure. The TEA/AECOM report coming out this summer usually identifies both the Orlando-area tourism flow as well as the change by each park. During the peak of Pottermania, for example, Orlando-area tourism was outpacing WDW attendance growth, even though the latter was positive.

If WDW attendance tracks or exceeds Orlando tourism, then it is reasonable to conclude FP+ is not a drag on attendance.

Edited to add: and that is generous, because UO opened Diagon Alley in 2014---likely to be a significant attendance driver. Not the same as Hogsmeade, but something. The final additions to New Fantasyland are not in the same league.

 

[Silock]

If WDW attendance tracks or exceeds Orlando tourism, then it is reasonable to conclude FP+ is not a drag on attendance.

I don't know if you can really measure something like that. For instance, we cancelled our yearly trip to WDW in 2015 because of FP+. Where is that going to be recorded in the statistics if another family takes our place and decides to go? Their decision is completely independent of mine, yet had I not changed my mind, both of us would be there. So, attendance could go up, but it's not reflecting how much higher it could have been. Additionally, we always go to Universal on our trips. It's not worth going to Orlando (for us), and not going to WDW, so neither will be getting our money. Again, not something reflected by the numbers, but is certainly driven by FP+.

And this brings up another point -- FP+ isn't likely to be a drag on attendance this (2014) year, because people were giving it a chance. It wouldn't be reflected until next year or the year after if it is.

 

[WillAustin]

Either way, if you typically ride TSMM 4 times each vacation, Space Mountain 6 times, RNR 5 times, etc., you are going to need more days to do it. You cannot ride the same number of rides in the same number of days unless you attack the parks in exactly the opposite way that Disney wants you to.

Definitely. On a DHS day, we'd get 3 TSMM rides before 10am, and a 4th later if we wanted it, all without waiting more than 10-15 minutes for any of them. And this was in July. Certainly we can't do that now.

 

[Brian Noble]

It's not worth going to Orlando (for us), and not going to WDW, so neither will be getting our money. Again, not something reflected by the numbers, but is certainly driven by FP+.

Fine. Measure it against national tourism numbers instead. However, that will be a lower bar---in general Orlando (and a few other spots, e.g. Las Vegas) have out-performed the US generally.

Unless you assume that "former' WDW vacationers won't vacation at all, they have to be going *somewhere*.

 

[MrInfinity]

There's the difference. We never waited 30 minutes for this. There was always a time during the day when you could get on in 10 or less, particularly just before closing. And the numbers get really skewed when you add in a third FP for either Soarin' or TT. And if you add a fourth.....

Oh lovely! Well ya know what? You can still ride SE shortly before closing without a wait. That's no different. You know why you can do this? Because nobody wants to! I sure don't. When it's closing, at Epcot, we probly just had dinner somewhere cool over in the WS. We are out doing P&F quests afterwards, buying chocolate, watching little shows, or just enjoying our time after dinner exploring something. There is NO case in which, after dinner at Epcot, we are going to want to double back to SE, ride that, then double back to the WS. That's why the line is so short then, and why Figment closed hours ago, cuz once ppl get in WS mode, it's not really about rides any more. I want to knock out the FW early. FP+ does that great. Bam bam bam. Soarin TT SE MS. All in like the first few hours. Pick up Nemo and Turtle Talk, and head over to the WS for our afternoon of Phineas and Ferb, exploring Mexico, China, and whatever else.

 

[Silock]

Fine. Measure it against national tourism numbers instead. However, that will be a lower bar---in general Orlando (and a few other spots, e.g. Las Vegas) have out-performed the US generally.

Unless you assume that "former' WDW vacationers won't vacation at all, they have to be going *somewhere*.

They don't *have* to. You're assuming that they're going to. We aren't replacing our trip. We're simply not going to WDW. I'm not at all saying I'm representative of any population. I'm definitely n=1. But that doesn't mean that I'm the only one.

 

[perditax]

Ok, dumb question interlude:

How long are the FP+ lines? Say I have a FP+ line for Thunder mountain at noon on a Saturday (I do). I assume it's not walk-on, but is it closer to 5-10 min, or half an hour?

 

[Laketravis]

Ok, dumb question interlude:

How long are the FP+ lines? Say I have a FP+ line for Thunder mountain at noon on a Saturday (I do). I assume it's not walk-on, but is it closer to 5-10 min, or half an hour?

Depends on who you ask.

 

[perditax]

Depends on who you ask.

Reality! I like reality!

 

[Planogirl]

Reality! I like reality!

Good luck with that. It either takes forever or is a walk on. It often depends on which camp you're in.

 

[perditax]

Dang it!

 

[MrInfinity]

Ok, dumb question interlude:
How long are the FP+ lines? Say I have a FP+ line for Thunder mountain at noon on a Saturday (I do). I assume it's not walk-on, but is it closer to 5-10 min, or half an hour?

It's somewhere in between. Around 20 min maybe.

 

[Cormoran]

It's really not accurate just to compare numbers to numbers when trying to get a picture of what the public wants. If it were, we could easily say that since Universal saw only 7 million guests while the MK saw 18 million, that 11 million more people like what Disney is doing better. And the numbers get only worse when combining all the parks.
Numbers can be played to suit the game.
And only on the Dis can record attendance and profits be turned into a negative.

First of all, I did not provide numbers, you did. I provided percent increase in attendance, which was what the Disney suits cited in the quarterly earnings report. I am not twisting anything that was said. Disney said theme park attendance for both WDW and DLR had seen the same increased percentage growth over the quarter. I didn't say this was negative. DLR and WDW both experienced increased attendance and increased profits. The quarterly report cited increased prices for tickets, food and merchandise as the source of the increased earnings. MDE and FP+ were not cited as revenue sources.

The only issue I have is attributing these profits as being a direct effect of MDE and FP+. Even the Disney execs didn't attribute their increases to MDE and FP+.

I don't think the implementation of FP+ will have any influence on theme park attendance for several years. Also, I only mention FP+'s influence, because IMO it is the only controversial segment of MDE.

 

[Cormoran]

Of course they do, in every quarterly report. They do tend to group the two domestic destinations together, but even then they will use different language if one under-performs the other by a noticeable margin.

Disney never provides their attendance numbers. According to Len Testa, Jim Hill,and Pete Werner, theme park attendance is extrapolated from theme park tickets sales tax. Disney keeps their attendance numbers a secret. The only thing they provide is percent increases. You're naming theme park publications as sources, but again these are guesstimates.

 

[wisblue]

Reality! I like reality!

I will give you a more specific answer that I think is realistic.

I think the normal wait for using a FP is 10 minutes or less and more often than not close to a walk on. It is definitely closer to 5-10 minutes than a half hour.

This conclusion is based on my own experience and the fact that I have little doubt that, if waits were typically longer than that, a lot of people on the Dis, especially ones who dislike FP+ in the first place, would be complaining about it. In fact, some critics of FP+ have suggested that the lines for using FPs are TOO SHORT, and that that is why standby lines at some attractions are now longer. There have been suggestions that FP waits should be managed to be about 20 minutes on average, and the reaction to that has been close to unanimously negative. There are also posters who say they won't wait more than 20 minutes for anything. If waits to use FPs were that long, we would be hearing about it.

Of course there are exceptions when the wait in a FP line can be longer, such as when a ride goes down and creates a backlog of FP users.

 

[cakebaker]

First of all, I did not provide numbers, you did. I provided percent increase in attendance, which was what the Disney suits cited in the quarterly earnings report. I am not twisting anything that was said.

Percentages are numbers- and you used them to bolster your opinion. I used them to bolster mine.

Wow- look! Universal had double the increase in attendance that WDW had!! That means Universal is doing it right and Disney isn't!

Wow! Look, Disney had umpteen million more visitors than Universal- must mean Disney is doing it right and Universal isn't!

Both using the same numbers, presenting them in a different light. You used the percentage, I used headcount. That's twisting to me.

 

[Cormoran]

Percentages are numbers- and you used them to bolster your opinion. I used them to bolster mine.

Wow- look! Universal had double the increase in attendance that WDW had!! That means Universal is doing it right and Disney isn't!

Wow! Look, Disney had umpteen million more visitors than Universal- must mean Disney is doing it right and Universal isn't!

Both using the same numbers, presenting them in a different light. You used the percentage, I used headcount. That's twisting to me.

I was comparing percentage increase to percentage increase. I guess it really irritates you when percentage increase of attendance is compared, but I'm not twisting anything. You just don't like the actual figures.

 

[Brian Noble]

Disney never provides their attendance numbers.

Again, they do. I even posted a quote earlier in this very thread:
http://www.disboards.com/threads/i-am-beginning-to-lose-hope.3376756/page-9#post-53028796

In case you don't want to click on it, I will include it again (emphasis mine):

For the quarter attendance at our domestic parks was up 7%, with Walt Disney World and Disneyland Resort, each setting an all-time attendance record for any quarter. Per capita spending in our domestic parks was up 4% on higher ticket prices, merchandise, and food and beverage spending. Occupancy on our domestic hotels was up 8 percentage points to 89% and per room spending was up 4%. So far this quarter, domestic resort reservations are pacing up 3% compared to prior year levels, while book rates are up 4%.
​

No, that's not an absolute number, so that's perhaps the hair you are splitting. But, for the purposes of determining whether or not FP+ is having an impact, percentage differences are fine. What's more, this quarter includes the definitive statement that WDW saw more guests this most recent quarter than they ever have.

 

[mom2rtk]

I believe percentage increase over last year is a more accurate indicator of how a company is doing NOW.

Total attendance numbers could be more of a reflection of how a company has done in the past. If a company is resting on its laurels, total attendance could be high, but increases would be flat.