Theme Park attendance estimates released - Record 112 Million Visit Disney Parks

[MasterShake]

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]

You posted this, then complain about others being rude?

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

 

[MasterShake]

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.

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.

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]

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!

 

[cristen]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

really, what's on the plate next that's on par with EE?

 

[MasterShake]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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