peter11435
Well-Known Member
Far more WDW visitors come from the US than from China or Japan.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
2016 TEA Themed Entertainment Attendance Report
- Thread starter donsullivan
- Start date
bhg469
Well-Known Member
To one generation maybe but remember potter isn't just a movie and its far from over so....
Aside from that Rowling has a large influence over the quality in the Wizarding world additions. Whose keeping Disney in check for star wars?
danlb_2000
Premium Member
Star Wars is multi-generational in it's popularity and is also far from over.
bhg469
Well-Known Member
You're right it is multi generational but some of the generations got garbage and the new one is still iffy. IMO the cartoons are hot garbage and I do not trust Disney to make a land on the same level as potter and Pandora when they don't have anyone to answer to.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
As much as original trilogy fans might not like the prequels, the kids who grew up with them tend to be more accepting of them. A lot of people would disagree with out on the cartoons, I actually feel they are quite good.
dreamscometrue
Well-Known Member
I doubt that very, very much. I think Star Wars is actually as big as it gets in Orlando, especially when you consider where most of the tourists who want to visit Central Florida's theme parks come from.
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
Which begs the question of why only two rides? Maybe they will pull a Launch Bay and fill the rest with revenue producers?
doctornick
Well-Known Member
Yeah, that seems like an odd comment to try to prop up Nintendo compared to Star Wars. Sure, Nintendo the company has been around forever, but the actually IP stuff that we are talking about is younger than the existence of Star Wars and has been distributed in a very youth oriented manner (video games). If there's any one thing that Star Wars has over most other IPs is how multi-generational it is -- we're talking about something that grandfathers talk to their grandsons about.
I certainly could be wrong, but I've got to imagine that for folks that are, say, older than 50 or 60, the awareness let alone fandom of Nintendo would be relatively small whereas a ton of those folks know/follow Star Wars.
bhg469
Well-Known Member
you doubt Nintendo will draw...
Mario is one of the most recognizable characters in the world. Pokemon was the only thing people talked about for close to a year. You're underestimating the power they have.
I am first and foremost a star wars fan. I don't play Nintendo games and think their new console is a gimmick. I have not been behind any of their decisions for years. Universal will set the theme park world on fire if this is a good addition.
Last edited:
bhg469
Well-Known Member
Of course star wars will. I just think Nintendo is a lot closer to star wars in popularity than many people think.
Absimilliard
Well-Known Member
The best proof of that was the madness with getting the NES Classic console. How many millions of NES consoles were sold in the 80's? 62 millions around the world according to Wikipedia. Now, add an average of say 4 people per family plus everyone who visited and played with it... you have hundreds of millions of people who know Mario, Zelda, etc. They have fond memories of playing on the TV with their family and friends... Sounds familiar? Its the same demographic Disney goes after. If Universal plays this smart, they have the potential magic bullet to Disney and in Japan, there is a huge possibility Universal Studios Japan could get ahead of Tokyo Disneyland in attendance. Who could have ever imagined that?
dreamscometrue
Well-Known Member
I think 2 e-tickets is a great start, and like Pandora and Diagon Alley, the land itself and the experiences there will be an attraction as well. Plus, Star Tours still exists. If that were to change to another IP, I would welcome a replacement.
dreamscometrue
Well-Known Member
Sorry, I meant that I don't think Nintendo will draw as well as Star Wars.
Darth Goofy finds your lack of faith disturbing!
mikenatcity1
Well-Known Member
I think Nintendo will draw a large crowd, but not as big as Star Wars. If Disney does the land right, that will be the land across any theme park to beat. Nintendo sounds great to me (growing up with Mario) but only for anything possibly with Mario Kart...
mikenatcity1
Well-Known Member
I was going to say the same thing- I didn't go in 2016 because there was nothing new- waiting until lands and attractions are finished before going again (2018 will be a big year as I haven't been to Universal to see the new Harry Potter stuff).
Coaster Lover
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
I'd be curious to know what percentage of vacationers, on a ≤7 day Orlando vacation, go to ONLY Disney owned properties or ONLY Universal owned properties and no other Orlando area attractions. I mean, the way Disney is set-up, they create the mentality of Disney being a one-stop-shop with plenty to do for a week and no reason to really go anywhere else during that week. Even their transportation system works to almost dissuade guests from renting a car (thus almost making it that slightly bit more difficult to get off property). I'd imagine the percentage of vacationers on a ≤7 day Orlando vacation who go to ONLY Disney owned properties is probably reasonably high. On the other hand, it's much more difficult for Universal to advertise themselves as a place where guests can stay for a full week, and therefore, I'd imagine that the percentage of vacationers on a ≤7 day Orlando vacation who go to ONLY Universal owned properties is probably quite low (especially in regards to the percentage for Disney). I guess what I'm going for here is that I wonder how other Orlando area parks/attractions will be impacted as Universal continues to grow (and especially if/when they open their third dry park). If Universal adds a third gate (in addition to it's new water park and City Walk), they can really start to play up Universal as a one stop park. I'd think that could hurt other Orlando area attractions much more than than the competition from any other new non-Universal/non-Disney addition.
I know my wife and I typically split up our Orlando area vacations. We'll typically do an "all Disney" trip (where we more or less hit exclusively Disney attractions) or we'll do an "Everything but Disney" trip (where we'll hit Universal, IOA, Sea World/Aquitica, and possibly Busch Gardens, Kennedy Science Center, etc). Occasionally, we may take one day from a Disney trip to hit a BIG new attraction else where (for example, we took a day off from our Disney trip a few years ago to see Diagon Alley), but otherwise, we either stay mostly on or mostly off Disney property. If Universal adds a new park, I can see our trips becoming "Just Disney" and "Just Universal" trips which would likely severely impact how much we visit Sea World (let alone Busch Gardens or Aquitica).
Then again, maybe the number of people who routinely hit up multiple Orlando area properties/attractions in a vacation is much higher than I anticipate and it's more of a "anything that brings guests to Orlando is good for ALL Orlando area properties". It'll be interesting to see how things pan out over the next 5-10 years.
I know my wife and I typically split up our Orlando area vacations. We'll typically do an "all Disney" trip (where we more or less hit exclusively Disney attractions) or we'll do an "Everything but Disney" trip (where we'll hit Universal, IOA, Sea World/Aquitica, and possibly Busch Gardens, Kennedy Science Center, etc). Occasionally, we may take one day from a Disney trip to hit a BIG new attraction else where (for example, we took a day off from our Disney trip a few years ago to see Diagon Alley), but otherwise, we either stay mostly on or mostly off Disney property. If Universal adds a new park, I can see our trips becoming "Just Disney" and "Just Universal" trips which would likely severely impact how much we visit Sea World (let alone Busch Gardens or Aquitica).
Then again, maybe the number of people who routinely hit up multiple Orlando area properties/attractions in a vacation is much higher than I anticipate and it's more of a "anything that brings guests to Orlando is good for ALL Orlando area properties". It'll be interesting to see how things pan out over the next 5-10 years.
lentesta
Premium Member
I'm a little skeptical of some of Disney's numbers in the TEA report. Here's why.
There's an internal Disney document from 2010 that shows the number of days in 2009 that each park hit various attendance levels. Here's a remake of the chart:View media item 3425 (I think lots of folks here have seen it.)
So, for example, the Magic Kingdom had 55 days in 2009 in which attendance was around 30,000 people. It had 16 days in which attendance was around 55,000 people.
If you do the math, it shows a MK attendance of around 14,180,000 when TEA reported 16,972,000. That's a pretty large gap. Its similar for Epcot, where the gap is about 1.2MM guests.
The MK numbers don't get much better even if you add in a couple of missing days at the highest attendance levels, and assume that the attendance is as large as it could be without being rounded into the next bucket:
View media item 3426
The Epcot numbers are close enough in this scenario, though.
I'm having trouble reconciling these two sets of numbers with TEA's numbers.
There's an internal Disney document from 2010 that shows the number of days in 2009 that each park hit various attendance levels. Here's a remake of the chart:View media item 3425 (I think lots of folks here have seen it.)
So, for example, the Magic Kingdom had 55 days in 2009 in which attendance was around 30,000 people. It had 16 days in which attendance was around 55,000 people.
If you do the math, it shows a MK attendance of around 14,180,000 when TEA reported 16,972,000. That's a pretty large gap. Its similar for Epcot, where the gap is about 1.2MM guests.
The MK numbers don't get much better even if you add in a couple of missing days at the highest attendance levels, and assume that the attendance is as large as it could be without being rounded into the next bucket:
View media item 3426
The Epcot numbers are close enough in this scenario, though.
I'm having trouble reconciling these two sets of numbers with TEA's numbers.
ParentsOf4
Well-Known Member
Some focus on actual attendance because of bragging rights. ("It's the X most popular theme park in the World!")
Certainly actual attendance is important to the company since it represents revenue. However, they don't need TEA to tell them what their attendance is!
For you and I, percent change is probably more important. ("Is it more or less crowded than the last time I went?")
From this perspective, TEA's numbers closely follow Disney's reported changes over the last several years.
I'm on travel at the moment but should be able to graph this after I arrive at my destination.