Universal has been doing great, but I was surprised by Magic Kingdome increase... I guess the new land is a hit...
It is any surprise that Disneyland's president got sent to Florida?
So what? At WDW, where they have park hopping too, all four parks have increased attendance by 2.2%.
DCA gets the credit, while Disneyland suffered slightly. That is the truth. To Disneyland's credit, it still has higher attendance and longer operating hours.
The rumors are DCA will get another new E-Ticket soon, perhaps Monsters themed, then Disneyland will get one. This will ensure both parks will have attendance that are closer rather than 2:1.
After visiting DCA last month, I noticed that I go to the new rides and haven't bothered with Paradise Pier. What a change. It used to be that I had no choice but to visit the carnival section. On the other hand, DCA's revival made Disneyland seem tired, but they do have some nice additions like the Magical Map show and the Princess Fantasy Fair.
California Adventure has never enjoyed the popularity of Epcot or the other 2 WDW parks. For a massive chunk of visitors to go there, WHATEVER THE REASON, and raise the Disneyland Resort's total park visitors by more than 1.25 million in a year is MASSIVE.
My original point though was the attendance decrease that Knott's Berry Farm is having. 4% may not seem like a lot, but when you balance all the factors, that can result in a harsh blow to the shareholders.
Whether Disneyland Resort's 1.25 million visitors+ is to blame for this or not, Knott's Berry Farm may need to reconsider their marketing approach
Nonetheless Walt Disney World certainly has reason to celebrate. Especially the Magic Kingdom -- which (typically) dominated the Central Florida market.
And that dominance does not even include the potential impact of the Fantasyland expansion -- which was only open during the last month of 2012. When the Mine Train family coaster opens in 2014, attendance at the Magic Kingdom could very well surpass 18 million guests.
In fact (according to the report) we could combine the reported attendance of BOTH Universal Orlando parks and the Magic Kingdom would still outpace that number by more than 3 million guests.
I guess it's true that people vote with their pocketbooks, and that Disney knew what they were doing when they raised prices so dramatically in May 2012.
Was it just a temporary bump that disappeared after the first few weeks?
Can't imagine what DCA's numbers will look like in 2013 after a full year of Radiator Springs Racers.... 8.5 to 9 million maybe? Wow. What a tremendous success story that 1.1B makeover turned out to be for Disney. As we've always said, "If they spend it, we will come."
Their methodolgy most likely has a lot to do with guessing and drunk executives. That is alright, what else should they do. They can hardly publish the drunken executive methodology, even so that one promises to be quite accurate. German family owned companies like Europapark or Phantasialand have a crazy secrecy culture, still they have some number for those two. Some parks do publish exact public numbers.
Considering Disney is a public company, their public disclosures area also quite bad. Would be quite angry as an investor about how intransparent Disney is.
I am a bit surprised Europapark only increased by 100k, since roomnights sold in the region went up a lot more last year.
Disneyland Paris is fascinating: The sixth most visited theme park in the world, some 50 € spent per visitor is still unable to make any money.
Epcot: Look at it on google maps, that park is twice as big as the magic kingdom parks. Disney built a freaking giant there, that thing must have been incredible expensive. Despite all the flaws and lack of reinvestment, this park is still amazing, and probably unprofitable just like Disneyland Paris.
Iceland of Adventure: Oh come on, that Potter ride cant possibly be that great. Id be more willing to re visit with the old price and the shorter lines pre Potter. Congratulations to the marketing people, for turning this park arround from undervisited to overvisited by high spending Potter fans. To bad it took an expensive license to achieve that.
I Respond: Yeah, and if you look really close you'll notice that about half of that space consists of a lake. See it? Look closer. There it is!
That my friends, is fanboyism in a nutshell.
2 million visitors with relativly high prices in the not so well off former communist region, quite an achievment.
Indeed, on this thread an anonymous poster writes: "German family owned companies like Europapark or Phantasialand have a crazy secrecy culture, still they have some number (sic) for those two." To provide these park numbers a different means of calculation may (or may not) have been used.
It should also be noted that yours truly noted in his 2012 posts: "Of course I may be wrong"
I Respond: Why?
Anon Mouse: "...but I wonder why you would doubt the data since no one has claimed it was wrong."
I Respond: Disney used to release park attendance figures but then stopped. For the Disney company, or any park operator, to make any comment regarding the accuracy of an outside assessment (good or bad) offers no benefit to the company.
Anon Mouse: "Not all theme parks are equal. That's why there are different methods to derive the data."
I Respond: You don't understand the history of this type of data. After Disney stopped releasing attendance data, a publication called Amusement Business would do a comparative analysis based upon stockholders reports, regional occupancy rates provided by hotel associations, resort taxes and other data. Amusement Business would compare park revenue posted in annual stockholder reports and then estimate attendance at the Disney parks based upon how that revenue compared to previous reports (taking into account price increases on tickets, food, retail, etc.). But that analysis was dependent upon having previous reported attendance supplied by the company.
In the case of IOA (for example) TEA / AECOM did not have company provided attendance figures to pull from. Therefore, they are applying a different methodology to calculate their estimate. How the report accounts for these differences is not defined. How can a reader be certain about the report's integrity without knowing the manner in which the method was adjusted from park to park? Where's the math? Why not show it?
And by the way: This post is TOTALLY ACADEMIC. I hope someone can address this.
Of course there is benefit to Disney. Disney often cites the attendance reports especially if the reports are favorable. If not favorable, they merely say they don't release attendance records. Even if Disney doesn't officially release its attendance records, it can unofficially goose their records to the companies for marketing purposes. This was done for AB's benefit, which I read about in the past.
"You don't understand the history of this type of data."
Everything you said is not news to me.
You still did not say why it matters to have consistency of their methods. If the attempt is to get accurate data for each theme park, the data was already adjusted to be accurate in the rankings.
I Respond: You use the word "often" -- which implies more than once. Could you provide examples? Maybe a link? Some place where Disney specifically cited a favorable report.
Anon Mouse writes: "You still did not say why it matters to have consistency of their methods."
I Respond: And you didn't respond to my why it would be "obvious the methodology is kept as a secret."
And to be clear, what I actually posted in my response was that the method that Amusement Business employed was dependent upon the availability of previous history -- attendance figures that had been officially released by Disney. Absent the availability of that method (for example, the fact that IOA has [to the best of my knowledge] NEVER released official attendance numbers) what then becomes TEA/AECOM's methodology make their calculations and draw their conclusions?
The reason it "matters" is because this is a comparative analysis. How can one park be listed as #1 if the method that totals the attendance is different from the method of park #2 how does the report account for that deviation? What is the methodology?
Absent the actual math its difficult to claim that the report's conclusion is credible.
I Respond: So what? Why does that matter? The report is compiled by a business association (whose members include major theme park operators) and is distributed for free. They wouldn't lose "sales" nor would they lose some sort of "patent." Where is the liability?
Of course there is reason to believe that TEA might use a method with less-than-credible assumptions. Remember this is a business organization. Major theme park operators are among their members. TEA has motivation to pump the numbers. If the Magic Kingdom (for example) actually welcomed only 13 million guests (as opposed to 17.5 million) it might not be as easy to attract attraction sponsorship. It could also impact its per share price on the NYSE. TEA's purpose is to promote attractions. To report anything other than vibrant success could undermine the status of their membership.
No, I would recommend you do the Google search. It is strange that you would doubt the word "often." It seems like you knew Disney did this in the past, and they did.
"obvious the methodology is kept as a secret."
I said it would be obvious to keep a secret. Since you don't think it is obvious, it is clear that the obvious response that a company would want to keep its research method a secret is sort of lost on you.
I don't recall a single time that Disney had cited outside attendance reports in the past and requested that Anon Mouse provide an example ("You use the word "often" -- which implies more than once. Could you provide examples?") and Anon Mouse was unwilling (or perhaps unable) to address that request.
Anon Mouse writes: "No, I would recommend you do the Google search. It is strange that you would doubt the word "often." It seems like you knew Disney did this in the past, and they did."
I Respond: I am unaware of Disney press/publicity ever citing outside "attendance reports especially if the reports are favorable." Which is why I asked the question. You made the claim that they did it "often" so I thought you would be capable of backing up the assertion.
Anon Mouse also Posted: "It would be obvious the (TEA AECOM) methodology is kept as a secret ..."
I asked, "why?"
Anon Mouse replied: "...it is clear that the obvious response that a company would want to keep its research method a secret is sort of lost on you."
I Respond: TEA (who sponsors the report) is not a "company." It's an industry association. It's an organization that advances the interests of the themed entertainment industry. And if the reason is "obvious" as you claim, then what exactly would that "obvious" reason be? This report does not generate revenue. If another entity used the same method TEA/AECOM would not lose money. It costs you and I nothing to click on the link provided by TPI to read the entire report. Indeed they would gain credibility for the conclusions they draw if the methodology were made public.
(See related discussion with Robert Morris).
And hey, if there is any SPECIFIC reason that my perspective is wrong, (a perspective that advocates TEA/AECOM disclosing exactly how it made the calculations it claims to be accurate) then by all means, slap me around.
I Respond: Not sure how that scenario plays out. What would motivate another party to steal the methodology and invest the time and money to (I can only ASSUME this is the TEA methodology) go through stockholder reports, hotel association reports, hotel /sales tax revenue data, airport/transportation reports and other source material (at a WORLDWIDE level) to compile and publish an annual report that people can already get ... for free?
What would the thieving entity that steals the methodology have to gain from making that effort?
Again, TEA is an industry association. Like the Association of Jelly Bean Manufacturers or the Brotherhood of Chainsaw Jugglers, TEA wants to pimp its industry. Hiding detailed methodology allows TEA to shield itself from outside analysts who might question its conclusions -- reducing the entire publication to the level of a glorified press release.
Related Story: The annual BOCJ report claims chainsaw juggling jumped by 29% in 2011.
(ah i think i remember they stoped after they had no legal responsibility after their public issued debt was paid back or sth like that, far in the realm of speculation here)
Obviously, accuracy differs depending on the effort/legal ability of parks to dodge reporting.
E.g. Oriental Land and Eurodisney at least release agregate data for both parks, while my previous examples Phantasialand and Europapark opt for a gmbh&co kg legal structures to avoid most publicity requirements.
Why would mere outside analysts question its conclusion? Before we go there, no one did.
I would think theme parks will challenge such reports as inaccurate or just wrong. At least theme parks can say those reports are inaccurate, but they didn't.
No one has said the reports are wrong.
As for why I don't find you a link, you need to do your own research. You don't know as much as you think. I question you. Who are you?
I Respond: Why?! The bulk of the report (published by an organization that is supported by theme park operators) claims business is BOOMING! The only park in the top ten that (allegedly) shows a drop is Disneyland (-1%) and that operation is still the second most successful model on the planet. Why on earth would Disney dispute such a ranking as inaccurate? What value would it have to make such a claim?
Anon Mouse writes: "As for why I don't find you a link, you need to do your own research."
I Respond: So you advance a claim and then ask someone else to prove it for you? I mean, seriously?
Anon Mouse demands: "Who are you?"
I Respond: Kind of a bold question from someone who posts under the handle "Anon Mouse."