More layoffs and cuts.....

[All Aboard]

I think my only, and last, answer to a thread like this is what my interactive Stitch plush likes to say to me, "WHAT--ever!" Have a Disney day!

Well, that's about all I needed to understand perspective in that debate.

 

[All Aboard]

Searcher, you are telling part of the story. AK dropped 6.4% in attendance in 2002, IOA was up 10.9%. The WDW resort on the whole was down 6.0%, while UO was up 1.6%. Universal did experience a shift in guests from USF to IOA, but was still up a few hundred thousand in total.

Animal Kingdom's attendance has dropped each year since it's first full year of operation in 1999, at the rate of 1/2 million guests per annum. Did the Disney folks really think that Dinorama was going to stop that bleeding?

 

[DisneyKidds]

Name them...

The one thing you are right about, and the main point you are probably trying to make, is that 2002 attendance at Disney parks was lower than 2001, while Universals were higher. That is something to take note of and could be a source for concern. Where will that lead? Who knows - but Disney should be proactive in trying to reverse that trend and I don't see them doing that right now .

However, you seem to paint a picture that Disney's attendance and Universal's attendance have been going in opposite direction for years, and that is not the case. Just about everyone was down in attendance in 2000/2001, Universal included.

The point others are trying to make is that the IOA-type "thrill" experience has not shown that it is capable of drawing the same level of attendance as the Disney-type "family" experience, or at least hasn't been able to do so yet. Will the yapping jackle that is IOA pick off the young, weak wildebeast in the Disney herd that is DAK? Perhaps. That would be more than just survival, but will IOA ever rule the savannah? I don't think so. Not that IOA probably isn't great, but it's appeal will never be as wide, at least not in the format they have now.

Of course, that has nothing to do with opening strategy for any of these parks, and the pace with which they have been adding, updating, or improving. Is Universal/IOA doing a better job than Disney in this regard? I really don't know. In the end, IOA doesn't have to have Disney-like attendance figures to be a more successful park than one of the Disney parks. Is it, or will it ever be? Again, I don't really know.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by gcurling
Searcher, you are telling part of the story.

Yeah ... you're right. I guess I was reacting more to pheneix's argumentative tone than to the actual comparison. Although ... I do think we can all agree that it's really hard to compare numbers from pre-9/11 with numbers from after, since attendance was higher, in general, at any given tourist spot prior to the terrorist events.

Still, in the interest of fairness and with a modicum of objectivity, here are perhaps some better comparisons (all still from Amusement Business):

DISNEY
Disney-MGM Studios -- 8,031,360 (2002); 8,366,000 (2001); 8,900,000 (2000)
Disney's Animal Kingdom -- 7,305,586 (2002); 7,771,900 (2001); 8,300,000 (2000)
Disney's California Adventure (opened 2/8/01) -- 4,700,000 (2002); 5,000,000 (2001)
Disneyland -- 12,720,000 (2002); 12,350,000 (2001); 13,900,000 (2000)
Epcot -- 8,289,200 (2002); 9,010,000 (2001); 10,600,000 (2000)
Magic Kingdom -- 14,044,800 (2002); 14,784,000 (2001); 15,400,000 (2000)
Tokyo Disneyland -- 13,000,000 (2002); 17,708,000 (2001); 16,507,000 (2000)
Tokyo DisneySea (opened 9/4/01) -- 12,000,000 (2002); 4,000,000 (2001)

UNIVERSAL
Universal Studios at Universal Orlando -- 6,852,600 (2002); 7,290,000 (2001); 8,100,000 (2000)
Universal Studios Hollywood -- 5,200,000 (2002); 4,732,000 (2001); 5,200,000 (2000)
Universal Studios Japan (opened 3/31/01) -- 8,010,000 (2002); 9,000,000 (2001)
Islands of Adventure -- 6,072,000 (2002); 5,520,000 (2001); 6,000,000 (2000)

So ... while it's certainly true that Disney attendance has gone down annually (with an anomoly here and there), the same is also true of Universal parks. And pheneix's contention that "Disney's parks [are] plummeting downward as Universal's parks increase" isn't exactly correct. "Plummeting" can be applied to Epcot (-22% over the three years) as well as to Tokyo Disneyland (-21%, due, I suspect to the opening of Tokyo DisneySea). But Universal Orlando took a 15% attendance hit between 2000 and 2002, up against only 9% for the MK, and 12% for DAK. Even Universal Japan lost 11% between 2001 and 2002, and it wasn't even open for a full year in 2001.

Also, an earlier claim that "All of Universal's parks are now on the rise in attendance, even the Studios in Florida which has had a rough time of it's own since IOA opened," is untrue, based on this info. USF didn't post a gain last year, rather a 6% loss.

The numbers I've been searching for and haven't been able to find are those that speak to how much local business each chain had before and after 9/11. Chances are, Disney took a much greater hit on international visitors than did Universal. Which adds yet another layer.

 

[pheneix]

>>>Magic Kingdom is doing more than twice the business IOA is bringing in<<<

Being open for 31 years tends to do that. The Magic Kingdom's attendance in the 70's (and even the early 90's) was not nearly as high as it is today.

>>>and even the lowly Animal Kingdom is racking up more guests than the Universal thrill park<<<

Read Paragraph #1. How many people are probably going to visit AK just because it is an addition to the park hopper rather than because it is a park worth visiting? IOA has no park to leach off of (does anyone really think that the Studios is pulling up IOA's numbers?), it earns the attendance it gets.

>>>Also, an earlier claim that "All of Universal's parks are now on the rise in attendance, even the Studios in Florida which has had a rough time of it's own since IOA opened," is untrue<<<

Go check out Vivendi's "quarterly press release" (where they give a cliffs notes version of their quarterly numbers before releasing a formal report a few weeks later) on the 4th quarter of last year. Domestic attendance at all Universal parks was higher (no word on per capita spending, although it is widely assumed that Universal Orlando's is up. USH is an entirely different story, thanks to their giving away of APs to any one day ticket holder), with those revenue increases offset by lower management fees from overseas parks (Port Aventura, which you never listed, as well as USJ).

>>>Even Universal Japan lost 11% between 2001 and 2002, and it wasn't even open for a full year in 2001.<<<

The drop is probably going to be a lot sharper than that when USJ finally coughs up their attendance for the year in March (like most overseas parks they own up to the attendance that they get). Attendance for the park's first full year was 11 million, vs. the 8 million they were estimated to earn in the calendar year of 2002. BTW, even with the substantial drop in attendance USJ still hit it's initial targets set back when the park was under construction.

>>>Disneyland beats out USH by a mile.<<<

USH will NEVER get the attendance that Disneyland park gets. The park can not handle crowds like that, nor was it ever intended to. In fact, USH itself really only started becoming a major theme park about the same time that Universal set up shop in Florida. Before that it was mainly the tour and a handful of shows.

>>>And even California Adventure isn't as far behind Universal Hollywood as you'd think, based on all the press about low attendance.<<<

DCA's attendance is far less that what AB was estimating. Based on what I have been hearing I would estimate that the park had 4.3 million in 2002, and I am being VERY generous. DCA is much more of a failure than what AB gives it credit for.

>>>I'd love to know which Universal Japan scandals were "created to cut down the reputation of the park," and what evidence you have that that's true. Everything that I've seen reported -- fireworks problems, food problems, water irregularities -- seemed pretty well documented.<<<

The fireworks problems were false, as the shows were brought back unchanged after police raided the offices of the park (not one of their proudest moments, but it seems to be a Universal trait- see Vivendi's offices in France).

>>>And, of course, Disney Studios Paris, which has only a partial year to go by.<<<

Incidentally, the partial year that the park had provides a pretty accurate comparison with the popular seasonal parks in Europe. The number of parks in Europe that have a higher daily attendance than DSP is staggering.

 

[WDSearcher]

>>>Being open for 31 years tends to do that. The Magic Kingdom's attendance in the 70's (and even the early 90's) was not nearly as high as it is today.<<<

Well ... of course not. But the tone of the previous posts seemed to be talking about attendance now, not attendance in the '70s. If I'm wrong about that, I apologize. I was doing comparisons based on recent numbers. Not 30-years-ago stuff. I'm assuming your point is that Universal's numbers will increase as they get older. I don't think we've ever disputed that, have we?

>>>IOA has no park to leach off of (does anyone really think that the Studios is pulling up IOA's numbers?), it earns the attendance it gets.<<<

I would think that the fact that Universal Studios Orlando has posted higher attendance than IOA over the past three years -- with significantly higher numbers in 2000 and 2001 -- would kind of indicate that IOA is indeed "leeching" off of its sister park. People are going to USO and then IOA. Just like they go to MK first and DAK later.

>>>Go check out Vivendi's "quarterly press release" (where they give a cliffs notes version of their quarterly numbers before releasing a formal report a few weeks later) <<<

Yup. And Disney can make it look like they've increased every quarter too. That's part of what press releases are designed to do. Anyone who's been to a statistics class can tell you that there are a hundred ways to look at any group of numbers. I'll stick with the AB numbers, which are well respected by the industry.

>>>DCA's attendance is far less that what AB was estimating. Based on what I have been hearing I would estimate that the park had 4.3 million in 2002, and I am being VERY generous. DCA is much more of a failure than what AB gives it credit for.<<<

Where does that estimate come from? Just the fact that you've heard it somewhere doesn't mean it's credible. Give us a source.

>>>The fireworks problems were false, as the shows were brought back unchanged after police raided the offices of the park (not one of their proudest moments, but it seems to be a Universal trait- see Vivendi's offices in France).<<

Again ... got a source for that info? I didn't see that in the news. (Not surprising, since the news seldom reports on the good stuff, only the scandals, but I'd still love to know where your info is coming from.)

I don't think anyone's ever painted DSP as a winner at this point. But your observation that "the number of parks in Europe that have a higher daily attendance than DSP is staggering" isn't exactly true. I don't have daily attendance figures (if you know where they are, please post that link), and I'm sure those fluctuate widely. But as for annual attendance ...

In 2002 (the only year we have for DSP), Port Aventura posted attendance of 3,200,000. DSP, opened for 10.5 months of that same year, came in at 2,800,000. So it's not horribly behind. I suspect next year will be worse, since any novelty will have worn off. Both of them can't even come close to DLP's 10 million (although that's decreased from past years as well); but both of them easily beat out any of the Six Flags European parks (the highest attendance comes from Flevolands in the Netherlands at 1,200,000) or Warner Bros. European parks (Madrid attendance last year was 1,950,000; Germany was at 1,850,000), not to mention beating out Alton Towers (2,300,000) and Chessington (1,200,000) in UK. Blackpool Pleasure Beach leaves both DSP and Port Aventura in the dust, with annual attendance of 6.4 mill.

 

[raidermatt]

Even going by the AB numbers, DCA's peformance is grim.

It opened in Feb '01 and drew 5.0 million that year. It followed with 4.7 million in '02, a drop of 6.0%, despite opening Flik's Fun Fair in Sept/Oct, adding the Summer Music Series and Soap Weekends, having a full year of attendance, and offering various discounts.

DCA managed this drop in attendance while DL actually increased its attendance from 12.3 million to 12.7 million, showing that guests were perfectly willing to visit the resort. However, they found DCA to be of less value than DL, even when DCA was discounted.

DCA (and AK for that matter) are classic cases of what happens when you let Marketing goals drive the creative process. What's disturbing is that Disney did not learn from the mistakes made with AK, and instead compounded them with DCA.

For what its worth, USH went from 4.7 million in '01, to 5.2 million in '02, an increase of 10.6% while offering heavy discounts. Knott's Berry Farm went from 3.58 million in '01 to 3.6 million in '02, an increase of .6%.


2000 was the first full year after the addition of AK and IOA, so any comparisons before that are tricky. So, using 2000 as the base year, WDW and UOF both had tough years in '01, dropping 7.4% and 9.2% respectively. UOF rebounded nicely in'02, increasing attendance by 1.6%, while WDW fell another 6.0%.

The argument that Universal's highest attended park is still lower than WDW's lowest is quickly losing steam. USF only trailed AK by 400k in '02, despite AK's addition of Dinorama and a parade. Its pretty clear that if Universal had left the Halloween nights in the Studios park, it would have easily made up the 400k to surpass AK.

SeaWorld Florida dropped 1.9% in '01, and 2.0% in '02.

One year does not prove a trend, but it also cannot be dismissed either. The company line continues to be to place 100% of the blame on outside forces. One certainly has the right to believe that, but given the company lines regarding ABC, DCA, EE, and other things in recent years, there shouldn't be a lot of credibility left in the company line.

Its only logical that reduced hours, services and attraction counts must have SOME effect on attendance, but again, one has the right to continue to buy the company line that outside forces remain the only problem.

 

[WEDWAY100]

Originally posted by WDSearcher
... I do think we can all agree that it's really hard to compare numbers from pre-9/11 with numbers from after, since attendance was higher, in general, at any given tourist spot prior to the terrorist events.

I don't agree with this, and frankly, I'm tired of seeing it as an excuse.

Florida had a record year for tourism in 2002. 80M+ visitors. This was a real number, not adjusted for 9/11 or anything. People are coming to Florida, but they aren't going to WDW as much. I think Disney management will eventually have to acknowledge this (if only internally), hopefully sooner rather than later.

My source on the Florida tourism number is the Tampa Tribune business section from last week. I provided a link in a spearate thread.

 

[Bstanley]

Interesting point Scoop.

My recent ticket purchases certainly illustrate the difference between the two locations philosophy.

Universal pass good for 3 days : $87 ($29.25 a day)

WDW pass good for 4 days : $205 ($51.00 a day)

So for the same number of guests through the gates Disney will make $21.75 more - on each one.

Now the next question is - how much of that 'lost' money does Universal make up on sales of stuff at the park? Example - It is certainly possible that when folks are figuring our their budgets they skip a few sit-down meals at WDW but not at Universal to make ends meet.

 

[Another Voice]

Wonderful numbers everyone’s been spouting. But there is a difference between numbers and facts.

We’ll leave aside the whole business about how the numbers that Amusement Business publishes are really guesses of estimates multiplied by a whim. The real issue is that Disney, Universal and everyone else have a very hard time determining what “attendance” really means for their own operations. And things get further confused by spin put on things for the benefits of Wall Street, stockholders, the press and the egos of various parking lot designing executives.

For example – “park hopping” is a significant factor at WDW, much more so than at Universal Orlando. It is the tradition within Disney that a guest is counted for the first park that visitor visits for that day. This leads to certain trends appearing in the numbers which lead people to a conclusion; but a deeper understanding of the numbers may lead to another one.

Let’s look at Animal Kingdom. The safari ride is the park’s big draw. Since the animals presented tend to be most active in the mornings, there is an incentive to open this ride early, and so there is a trend to open the park early. In fact, Animal Kingdom for a long time opened an hour more before all the other parks. It would often open before even the “Early Entry” park would open. Not surprisingly, a large number of people would make this their first park to visit. The way Disney counts “attendance”, all these people would count to Animal Kingdom.

But with park hopping, should they really? It’s been “rumored” that the length of an average guest visit to Animal Kingdom is significantly less than the other parks (some whispers hold that’s it less than half the time an average guest spends in the Magic Kingdom). Is it really valid to claim a “visitor” to a park when they spend the majority of their time elsewhere?

Elsewhere like Epcot for example. This park is generally regarded as an “evening” park. It the place you go to see fireworks and eat diner. It has no big morning draw. In fact, half the complex isn’t even open until lunch time. Wouldn’t people tend to want to get their full value from a day’s ticket and thus go to another park in the morning and then spend the rest of the day and evening at Epcot? Since these people went somewhere else first, Epcot does not get credit for their attendance. Is that a correct indication of what’s going on?

And on Mr. Scoop’s revenue point – how do you split up the money from people park hopping? And since people hop because it’s “free”, is that a real indication of the value people might place on a particular park. What would the attendance be at Animal Kingdom on a separate charge basis – which would be closer to the Universal Orlando model which has a much lower level of cross-park attendance. It’s rumored to be an easy tell since single day admission sales for Animal Kingdom are considered to be a huge financial problem for WDW.

Numbers don’t tell you anything until you can understand the facts they lie beneath them.

 

[All Aboard]

And another interesting question is: How many of the guests might have purchased a 5th or 6th day instead of the Universal passes had pricing been more in favor of Disney? Right now it's all about gaining market share for Universal.

 

[Panthius]

After hearing the talk of all the numbers, I am curious what percentage of the attendance of Universal and Disney is from International guests. I have no idea what the answer is to this question, but that might be one other reason for the difference in recent park attendance trends.

Panthius

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by raidermatt
DCA (and AK for that matter) are classic cases of what happens when you let Marketing goals drive the creative process. What's disturbing is that Disney did not learn from the mistakes made with AK, and instead compounded them with DCA.

Indeed. And for those of us who work in creative fields, we're just as frustrated as you. Because Disney isn't the only place it's happening.

Originally posted by raidermatt
Its only logical that reduced hours, services and attraction counts must have SOME effect on attendance, but again, one has the right to continue to buy the company line that outside forces remain the only problem.

Some of it is buying the company line. Some of it is truly wanting to believe. It's like watching "The West Wing." I know, logically, that the people who actually DO populate the West Wing are not that clever or witty or bright or sincere. But I really want to believe they are.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by Another Voice
Wonderful numbers everyone’s been spouting. But there is a difference between numbers and facts.

Yes, AV ... absolutely true. The whole "first gate click of the day" counting isn't as prevalent as it was -- technology being better these days and all -- but as I said earlier, any given group of statistics can be read a hundred ways.

I guess my point to listing everything was that no one else had. It was all "I've heard this" and "I've read that," and in the absence of any sources, AB was as good as any, closer than most.

 

[pheneix]

>>>Again ... got a source for that info? I didn't see that in the news.<<<

It was all over the news reports when the president of USJ stepped down and held his head down in shame last October.

Your European numbers make it seem like DSP has an upper hand over the other European parks, but it has to noted that those other parks have much, much shorter operating seasons than the year round operations of Euro Disney. A good example of this would be how Cedar Point always has a "low" attendance number when compared to the big guys in the United States, but in reality it's daily attendance average would be the equivalent of 8 to 9 million if it were open year round. Since the actual daily attendance directly corresponds with profits, it is important to note the distinction.

As far as my DCA estimate, just trust me on that one...

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by pheneix
>>>Again ... got a source for that info? I didn't see that in the news.<<<

It was all over the news reports when the president of USJ stepped down and held his head down in shame last October.

I saw it when he stepped down, but not that the fireworks scandals were fake or unfounded. You'd mentioned that the shows went back to the same operating procedures as before. That was the info I meant when I asked for a source. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[pheneix]

>>>It [Universal Studios Japan] also admitted it had falsely reported the explosives it had used and stored for four shows. The police raided the park office in August.

[SNIP]

The shows are back unchanged and an investigation is ongoing on why the false reports about the explosives got filed.

"We were trying to get ready for the opening, putting in a lot of work in a very short period of time," Takahashi said.<<<

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/travel/asia/story/681423p-778206c.html

 

[WDSearcher]

Thanks for the source. So .... did they ever find out who filed the false reports or why?